- We should define in the grammar simple-names and structured names.
Simple names have no "/" and structured names may have a slash.
Where do we care? System names are not passed to the above function.
We care for two reasons:
To put in the DEFSYSTEM grammar in the manual and
So that people don't later on try to hijack this function to do
something for which it was not intended.
Can't we just say that a component name is a string, then explain how the pathname default is computed from that string?
- The period character should be forbidden in /both/ simple and
structured names because of oddities with pathname types.
Wait, there are plenty of (:static-file "foo.bar") around the world! Do you propose to make them invalid?
Ick. Good point. OK, have to leave those. Note that we have already documented that those can lead to oddities across lisps.
At ITA we also have directories named after protocol versions, i.e. "foo-V1.200". We do want to keep the ability to have such names, thank you.
5.2 The use of a structured name implicitly overrides the default relative pathname for modules. [a test should go here!]
Isn't that what's currently happening? If not, that's a bug that should be fixed and tested for. Sigh. Too little testing happening indeed.
It's not that it isn't happening, it's that we need to specify what /should/ happen in the manual, for the next time someone wades in and starts changing things....
Yes. Documenting and testing are a bitch. They are what is preventing a 2.0 release now.
What about we use Stefil for testing ASDF?
I'm a little reluctant to see this done, if only because I don't want to force either additional training, or additional dependencies on the few people who bother to submit patches.
This will make STEFIL the third unit test framework I will have to master (NST, our own; FiveAM for the JSON library); where does this stop?
I'm fine if you think either NST or FiveAM fits the bill, as long as the thing is free software and is supported by clbuild. I think STEFIL is simple enough to learn and use.
And does STEFIL handle the kinds of tests we have, where you have to start new lisp jobs to do tests (seems like many test frameworks don't).
We may have to bind special variables (e.g. *defined-systems*) and to delete-package stuff created by test files, possibly using fixtures. I suppose any half-decent testing infrastructure can do it. I like the general design of STEFIL, but I will accept about anything.
That said, I don't care enough to say we should /not/ do this if someone else has the energy to do it.
If no one does anything nor raises a valid objection, I may commit something someday. Though I'd be more interested in revamping XCVB.
[ François-René ÐVB Rideau | Reflection&Cybernethics | http://fare.tunes.org ] "If god doesn't like the way I live, Let him tell me, not you." — As seen on a button