On 2010-03-30, at 20:36 , Juan Jose Garcia-Ripoll wrote:
I think I know roughly what Juanjo means here. In particular:
- I don't like to have my systems use the ASDF API internally.
E.g., I will set up variables with pathnames, or use logical pathnames in my ASDF system definition files, so that my actual code doesn't have to use something like asdf:system-definition-pathname.
- I have worked with people who don't use ASDF. If I observe
strictures like the ones I lay out in point 1, then those people can write a simple load file that somehow initializes the logical pathnames and loads the code (how to do that is /their/ problem!) and then they can use my code just as I do. If I used calls like asdf:system-definition-pathname, that would not be possible.
So I think Juanjo's objectives here (or at least my interpretation of his objectives!) are reasonable.
You got it right. I would extend the argument but I have to leave. Perhaps tomorrow.
? one can do that now. without any changes to asdf and without any purity tests. so, he must be thinking of something in addition.