On 2/22/10 Feb 22 -3:37 AM, james anderson wrote:
good morning;
On 2010-02-22, at 01:41 , Robert Goldman wrote:
On 2/21/10 Feb 21 -6:35 PM, james anderson wrote:
a question:
[...]
why is this better than to leave names atomic and provide a standard syntax to parse component relative (sic) pathnames?
Note that my whole last email is a red herring wrt this question. My last email assumes that Fare's change stays in, and I'm trying to write it up in the documentation.
I.e., "let's you and him fight." I am bowing out of this discussion.
i assert no disagreement here. i read a note, which opened with the confession, that these bits "bamboozle", and then proceeded over a page to attempt to construct a logic which would remain stable in the reader's mind. in light of which, i express the concern, should someone relatively experienced with this code need to go to these lengths, is it the right thing to have done?
I am inclined to agree. I'd be happier if we could just say something like
(:file "foo" :relative-directory "bar")
instead of
(:file "bar/foo")
For that matter, both of these are probably unnecessary now that module dependencies work and we can do:
(:module "bar" :components ((:file "foo")))
So, question: Fare, do we really need the additional hair now that intra-system module dependencies work? Wouldn't it be possible for you to macrologize your names-as-pathnames extension and purge the hair from the core of ASDF?
I'd love to see all this extra code get purged....
cheers, r