On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 4:25 PM, Robert Goldman rpgoldman@sift.info wrote:
Question: should we raise a style warning if the user supplies a logical pathname that does not comply with the ANSI spec? I would prefer that we do that.
The first question is whether we are going to provide a logical hostname or whether instead we will allow the user to provide a full logical pathname translation. That is
:logical-host "CL-PPCRE"
versus
:logical-path "CL-PPCRE:MY-DESIRED;SET;OF;VIRTUAL;DIRECTORIES;*.*.*"
The latter is trickier and proner to break. If we use the former we can provide two sets of translations
CL-PPCRE:FASL;*.*.* -> whatever binary directory CL-PPCRE:**;*.*.* -> source directory
So I would stay with that.
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;*.*.*
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 agree, but again this can be done in a two-step process. First convince people that the logical hostname works and only then move to providing binary translations -- if that is ever needed, which might not be the case.
Juanjo