Hi!
>In the old days, we would just put
>(asdf:load-system "extension")
That's good. This is declarative enough to be processed by tools like
quicklisp.
What goes to side effects, they are just inevitable if we want
i) asdf to be extensible
ii) some dependency language is used to declarate which
On 2/15/16 Feb 15 -2:38 PM, Faré wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 3:13 PM, Robert Goldman wrote:
>> On 2/15/16 Feb 15 -2:00 PM, Faré wrote:
>>> On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 2:18 PM, Robert Goldman wrote:
I was having some trouble with warnings causing build failures in ASDF,
despite (correct
On 2/15/16 Feb 15 -3:06 PM, Stelian Ionescu wrote:
> On Mon, 2016-02-15 at 14:48 -0600, Robert Goldman wrote:
>> Trying again:
>>
>> Can someone please state what it is that Quicklisp needs?
>>
>> IIUC Quicklisp does *something* with .asd files that does not involve
>> the defsystem-depends-on bein
On Mon, 2016-02-15 at 14:48 -0600, Robert Goldman wrote:
> Trying again:
>
> Can someone please state what it is that Quicklisp needs?
>
> IIUC Quicklisp does *something* with .asd files that does not involve
> the defsystem-depends-on being resolved.
>
> Is this reading? Or loading?
>
> If it
For some historical perspective, defsystem-depends-on was added at a
time when we wanted a more declarative solution than using load-system
in a .asd file, and wasn't initially thought through. It took over a
year for it to become an actually useful feature, after realizing the
package issue and al
Trying again:
Can someone please state what it is that Quicklisp needs?
IIUC Quicklisp does *something* with .asd files that does not involve
the defsystem-depends-on being resolved.
Is this reading? Or loading?
If it's loading, then the DEFSYSTEM-DEPENDS-ON entries are resolved by
REGISTER-SY
On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 3:13 PM, Robert Goldman wrote:
> On 2/15/16 Feb 15 -2:00 PM, Faré wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 2:18 PM, Robert Goldman wrote:
>>> I was having some trouble with warnings causing build failures in ASDF,
>>> despite (correctly?) setting variables.
>>>
>>> Please see the
On 2/15/16 Feb 15 -2:19 PM, Stelian Ionescu wrote:
> On Mon, 2016-02-15 at 11:13 -0600, Robert Goldman wrote:
>> On 2/15/16 Feb 15 -10:26 AM, Stelian Ionescu wrote:
On 2/12/16 Feb 12 -3:15 PM, Stelian Ionescu wrote:
> On Fri, 2016-02-12 at 16:07 -0500, Faré wrote:
>> I'm OK with declar
On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 3:19 PM, Stelian Ionescu wrote:
> No, have it search for a symbol named (string :foo/file) first in
> ASDF/EXTENSIONS then ASDF, for backwards-compatibility, then one day
> only ASDF/EXTENSIONS.
>
1- Why not just the use existing ASDF/USER rather than a newfangled
ASDF/EXTE
On Mon, 2016-02-15 at 11:13 -0600, Robert Goldman wrote:
> On 2/15/16 Feb 15 -10:26 AM, Stelian Ionescu wrote:
> >> On 2/12/16 Feb 12 -3:15 PM, Stelian Ionescu wrote:
> >>> On Fri, 2016-02-12 at 16:07 -0500, Faré wrote:
> I'm OK with declaring DEFSYSTEM-DEPENDS-ON a failure, and load-system
>
On 2/15/16 Feb 15 -2:00 PM, Faré wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 2:18 PM, Robert Goldman wrote:
>> I was having some trouble with warnings causing build failures in ASDF,
>> despite (correctly?) setting variables.
>>
>> Please see the test-warnings branch on cl.net. This contains a small
>> numb
On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 2:18 PM, Robert Goldman wrote:
> I was having some trouble with warnings causing build failures in ASDF,
> despite (correctly?) setting variables.
>
> Please see the test-warnings branch on cl.net. This contains a small
> number of additional tests.
>
> I'll continue to lo
I was having some trouble with warnings causing build failures in ASDF,
despite (correctly?) setting variables.
Please see the test-warnings branch on cl.net. This contains a small
number of additional tests.
I'll continue to look these over to see why they are failing. I'll move
to release aft
On 2/15/16 Feb 15 -10:26 AM, Stelian Ionescu wrote:
>> On 2/12/16 Feb 12 -3:15 PM, Stelian Ionescu wrote:
>>> On Fri, 2016-02-12 at 16:07 -0500, Faré wrote:
I'm OK with declaring DEFSYSTEM-DEPENDS-ON a failure, and load-system
(or load-systems) the official way to go. But
1- Thi
> On 2/12/16 Feb 12 -3:15 PM, Stelian Ionescu wrote:
> > On Fri, 2016-02-12 at 16:07 -0500, Faré wrote:
> >> I'm OK with declaring DEFSYSTEM-DEPENDS-ON a failure, and load-system
> >> (or load-systems) the official way to go. But
> >>
> >> 1- This of course requires heads up, updating all users bef
Hey,
I just want to say that I strongly support simplification of the
ASDF. It's a great project and solves gazillion of problems, but having
actual specification with some core features would make it way better
for me.
Even if not for this release, the next release might focus on
stabilizing the
On 2/12/16 Feb 12 -3:15 PM, Stelian Ionescu wrote:
> On Fri, 2016-02-12 at 16:07 -0500, Faré wrote:
>> I'm OK with declaring DEFSYSTEM-DEPENDS-ON a failure, and load-system
>> (or load-systems) the official way to go. But
>>
>> 1- This of course requires heads up, updating all users before
>> retir
17 matches
Mail list logo
