On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 8:28 PM, Robert Goldman rpgoldman@sift.info wrote:
On 3/30/10 Mar 30 -1:06 PM, james anderson wrote:
...
We want system definitions to be descriptive, not programatic, and we want the user code to be able to exist in an ASDF-free environment, as standalone systems. The existing situation does not allow this.
it would be nice to have concrete use cases. lacking them, these lists of goals require that there be some mechanism independent of asdf to effect the logical host definitions. which does not convince of a need to add the mechanism to asdf itself.
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.
[For the record, while I agree with Juanjo's overall statement of principle ("We want system definitions to be descriptive, not programmatic") I don't believe that this will be fully achievable in ASDF 2.]
No, but we get closer :-)