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:

1.  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.

2.  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.

[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.]