Now that this discussion is opened, I would like to add a small question and a petition.
First the question. What is the level of integration of ASDF with different implementations? Does ASDF support all lisp implementations equally? Does SBCL (and perhaps other) ship the latest versions of ASDF?
I am asking this because ECL has some pretty special needs. Namely, ASDF currently relies on compile-file / load for everything and for us it is more efficient to compile many files into a single binary that is loaded at a later point.
Currently ECL solves this using a slightly outdated version of ASDF, providing its own operations and imposing around methods on different operations. http://ecls.git.sourceforge.net/git/gitweb.cgi?p=ecls/ecl;a=blob;f=contrib/a...
For instance, we have a LOAD-FASL-OP that joins three steps: 1) a LOAD-OP that thanks to the around methods produces both FASLs and object files, 2) linking the object files into a big FASL, 3) loading the big FASL. If the big FASL has been produced, then only step 3) is performed.
But in addition to this ECL provides operations for creating standalone executable files, shared libraries and statically linked libraries http://ecls.sourceforge.net/new-manual/ch16.html
I am aware that ASDF is a rapidly evolving architecture and I am afraid that things would break. It is for this reason that I would like to ask for help in one of these ways: 1) providing a stable way for us to implement these extensions or 2) including those operations in ASDF.
Juanjo
On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 3:11 PM, Gary Kinggwking@metabang.com wrote:
For the record, we've had recent (but not definitive) discussions of:
whether or not optional parts of a system should be `nil` or unbound
version numbering
integrating ASDF and testing
ASDF and the windows symlink patch.
If there are things I missed in the above list, please let me know.
-- Instituto de Física Fundamental, CSIC c/ Serrano, 113b, Madrid 28006 (Spain) http://juanjose.garciaripoll.googlepages.com