> >> But there would be a nicer way, and this is the proposal. What
> about a new
> >> asdf option (eg :compile-with-nicknames), which could look like
> something
> >> this?
> >>
> >> (defsystem my-system
> >> :depends-on ("package-1" "package-2" "package-3" ...)
> >> :compile-with-nicknames (("package-1" "pckg-1")
> >> ("package-3" "pckg-3"))
> >> :components (...))
> >>
> >> I think this approach nicely works in a "clear" environment for
> non-parallel
> >> compilation when there are no insane nickname requests.
> >> The "clear" environment assumption can be relaxed to say that the
> user
> >> hasn't defined any nicknames which causes collisions for any
> necessary
> >> compilations.
> >>
> >> Or if you know a better way to handle this problem, I would be
> happy to hear
> >> about that...
>
> I think there is a better way to solve this problem, but it is an
> ASDF3 method.
> The basic idea is as follows:
>
> 1. ASDF currently works by developing a LINEAR plan for performing an
> operation. Here's an example:
>
> CL-USER> (asdf:operate 'asdf:load-op :murphy-ltk-demo)
> #<ASDF:LOAD-OP NIL @ #x1000d42f82>
> ((#<ASDF:LOAD-OP NIL @ #x1000d57312>
> . #<ASDF:CL-SOURCE-FILE "ltk" "ltk">)
> (#<ASDF:LOAD-OP NIL @ #x1000d57312> . #<ASDF:SYSTEM "ltk">)
> (#<ASDF:LOAD-OP NIL @ #x1000d62f32>
> . #<ASDF:CL-SOURCE-FILE "murphy-ltk-demo" "package">)
> (#<ASDF:COMPILE-OP NIL @ #x1000d62f52>
> . #<ASDF:CL-SOURCE-FILE "murphy-ltk-demo" "ltk-demo">)
> (#<ASDF:COMPILE-OP NIL @ #x1000d62f52>
> . #<ASDF:SYSTEM "murphy-ltk-demo">)
> (#<ASDF:LOAD-OP NIL @ #x1000d42f82>
> . #<ASDF:CL-SOURCE-FILE "murphy-ltk-demo" "ltk-demo">)
> (#<ASDF:LOAD-OP NIL @ #x1000d42f82>
> . #<ASDF:SYSTEM "murphy-ltk-demo">))
>
> Inspecting this plan reveals the problem: the operation COMPILE-OP on
> #<ASDF:SYSTEM "murphy-ltk-demo"> is not done AROUND the compilation
> operations
> on the component files, but AFTER them.
>
> 2. A possible solution would be to restructure the plans so that
> they are
> TREE-SHAPED, instead of linear. So that there would be an operation
> that
> CONTAINS the compile-ops of the individual systems.
>
> Then, instead of the "plan interpreter" component of ASDF just being
> a MAP, it
> would be a tree-mapper.
>
> I think that this is in some sense The Right Thing. The only
> problem is that
> the LOAD-OP is not "convex" in some sense. Instead, there is
> loading of files
> done *during* the compilation. So if we were to do this, wrapping
> something
> around the LOAD-OP might have counterintuitive results.
>
> Note also that I believe that we would have to keep the original,
> odd semantics
> of the operations on systems, and add a new operation, for backwards
> compatibility. So we might have COMPILE-COMPONENT-OP or something.
>
> Cheers,
> r
>
> >>
> > Dear Gábor,
> >
> > you describe a common problem and a shared frustration of many CL
> developers.
> > However, the problem is not limited to package nicknames, and instead
> > I would prefer something more general:
> > the ability to wrap something around compilation,
> > essentially an advice around compile-file*.
> > I recently added this feature to xcvb, so that it may compile
> ironclad,
> > that uses such a wrapper (an :around method on perform)
> > to bind the *readtable* and muffle some warnings around compilation.
> >
> > And so, I propose something more like:
> >
> > (defun call-with-my-nicknames (thunk)
> > (with-package-nicknames
> > (("package-1" "pckg-1")
> > ("package-3" "pckg-3"))
> > (funcall thunk)))
> >
> > (defsystem my-system
> > :depends-on ("system-1" "system-2" "system-3" ...)
> > :around-compile call-with-my-nicknames
> > :components (...))
> >
> > What do you think?
> >
> > Of course, you'd have to use ASDF 2.018 or later for that.
> > Or maybe it's time to call it ASDF 2.18 instead?
> >
> > —♯ƒ • François-René ÐVB Rideau •Reflection&Cybernethics•
>
http://fare.tunes.org
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > asdf-devel mailing list