You're probably not testing with SBCL, but with some implementation that either doesn't care that there are / in a pathname-name component or does some underlying magic.
I can assure you that the current ASDF will try to do non-portable things like
(make-pathname :directory `(:relative "source/level1") ...) (make-pathname :name "level2/file2" ...))
and if you add a (asdf:static-file "foo.bar") you'll get the lovely (make-pathname :name "foo.bar" :type nil)
I invite you to (TRACE MAKE-PATHNAME) and see the lossage. Trying on SBCL will make it more blatant.
[ François-René ÐVB Rideau | Reflection&Cybernethics | http://fare.tunes.org ] He who says he will die for a cause will probably lie for it and may kill for it. -- John McCarthy
2009/9/12 Gary King garywarrenking@gmail.com:
Hi Faré,
I was incorporating your patch and wrote this test system to test the change:
;;; -*- Lisp -*-
(asdf:defsystem test-module-pathnames :components ((:module "sources/level1" :components ((:file "file1") (:file "level2/file2")))))
The problem is that this system works fine without your patch. Am I missing something?
thanks,
On Sep 10, 2009, at 6:42 AM, Faré wrote:
Oops. The header was boiler-plate from a QRes-specific file inside which this patch was initially, and was never updated when the ASDF-specific code was extracted. This is all free software under the same license as ASDF. If you credit me in a git message, please use my ITA address fare@itasoftware.com.
[ François-René ÐVB Rideau | Reflection&Cybernethics | http://fare.tunes.org%C2%A0] The party of the first part shall be known in this contract as the party of the first part. -- Groucho Marx
2009/9/9 Gary King gwking@metabang.com:
Hi Fare,
I finally got to looking at your patch. It opens with
;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; ;;; ;;; ;;; Confidential and proprietary information of ITA Software, Inc. ;;; ;;; ;;; ;;; Copyright (c) 2007-2009 ITA Software, Inc. All rights reserved. ;;; ;;; ;;; ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
which makes it hard for me to include it <smile>
Maybe I'm dotting the wrong i's hear but can you provide the patch without the license or otherwise release it?