On 3/30/10 Mar 30 -11:52 AM, james anderson wrote:
On 2010-03-30, at 16:25 , Robert Goldman wrote:
On 3/30/10 Mar 30 -5:00 AM, Juan Jose Garcia-Ripoll wrote:
[...]
Question: are we going to create a logical pathname translation for just the system sources? Or should we create also something like
CL-PPCRE;FASLS;*.*.*
if asdf decides to befried logical pathnames, it should allow the system to define its own mapping.
in addition? This seems a little tricky, since it requires that we hook into the output name rewriting logic, but probably is The Right Thing.
i had understood that the name rewriting logic is disabled for logical pathnames. which is as it should be.
Clarification: the name-rewriting logic would still be disabled for logical pathnames. What I was suggesting was that
<SYSTEM-NAME>:FASL;
should be a logical pathname that would point to the location where <SYSTEM-NAME>'s (direct) fasls would be written by Faré's name rewriting.
I.e., this would be a way for the system to find its own fasls reliably, no matter what the output name rewriting does.
Is that more clear?
thanks, r