hY Fare and Robert,

I have my function, which does the described job for me too. The point here is to offer this functionality in public on an easy, standard way. Personally, I like to have a single defsystem sexp in the asd file, so I would prefer avoiding function definitions there. I haven't met any situation before when something serious had to be done around a compilation, but you are probably right and wrapping arbitrary functions is a useful functionality. However to do that nicely, asdf should be refactored in a way described by Robert. But I think it would be still nice to offer this (cheap) renaming functionality separately without some heavy syntax (wrapping the whole defsystem into a function seems to be heavy for me).

So my function walks along the whole asdf component tree and set the :before and :after for each (non-module) component. I had to do this way just because the fact you described (I guess). But I was thinking instead of putting this functionality around the compile-file call itself inside asdf. So to apply this immediately to the whole component tree (to each compilation unit). I think it is not a restriction with renaming. At least I cannot imagine a reasonable scenario when one wants to use different nicknames of the same package for different asdf modules.

So as I see this renaming functionality has the following properties:
I feel the 2nd point very valuable, so I think it would worth doing...

`bg`


On Sun, Oct 16, 2011 at 4:11 PM, Robert Goldman <rpgoldman@sift.info> wrote:
On 10/16/11 Oct 16 -4:52 PM, Faré wrote:
> 2011/10/16 Gábor Balázs <gabalz@gmail.com>:
>> 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
> asdf-devel@common-lisp.net
> http://lists.common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/asdf-devel


_______________________________________________
asdf-devel mailing list
asdf-devel@common-lisp.net
http://lists.common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/asdf-devel