Hi Tobias,
One thing, that you might want to use instead of :weakly-depends-on is
feature dependencies.
The syntax is (:feature ) in dependency list, like this:
(defsystem #:test
:depends-on (#:cl-ppcre
(:feature :custom-readtables))
Although, I didn't try it in modu
Is this one of those cases where you have to do some kind of oddball
dependency failure trapping?
I have always disliked the fact that ASDF makes you implement
conditionals as error-handlers. It seems like there should be a nicer
syntax for conditionals in system definitions
Sorry, I'm on va
On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 1:07 PM, Tobias C Rittweiler wrote:
> The parts you left out did not talk about reader conditionalization
> in ASD(F) files. So I'm confused by what you mean exactly.
>
Sorry, I understood the reader macros were intended to appear in the ASDF
itself. I obviously misread yo
Dear Tobias,
I personally think this "weakly-depends-on" is a horrible mess.
If you want FOO, require FOO. If you want FOO+READTABLE, require FOO+READTABLE.
And so have two systems FOO and FOO+READTABLE. I think that's what the
dwim.hu guys now do. It also works better with XCVB, this way.
> I'
In article
,
Juan Jose Garcia-Ripoll
wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 10:13 AM, Tobias C Rittweiler
> wrote:
>
> > Now I'm wondering how good that solution is.
> >
>
> Bad. I already spoke about why I am against reader conditionalization in
> ASDF files. Dependencies should only be either
On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 10:13 AM, Tobias C Rittweiler wrote:
> Now I'm wondering how good that solution is.
>
Bad. I already spoke about why I am against reader conditionalization in
ASDF files. Dependencies should only be either features (strictly CL
implementation dependent not the ones introdu
On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 9:04 PM, Faré wrote:
> The question is whether we should avoid creating extra packages, and
> instead export all relevant functions from ASDF, or should we keep
> those separate packages ASDF-BOOTSTRAP and ASDF-UTILITIES.
>
I think the too-many-packages problem is not wor
