Faré wrote:
1- I think we should proceed and add a default path anyway.
>>> ~/cl/ and/or ~/common-lisp/ sound fine to me, and I've seen no one >>> complain about that. >>> You could make it ~/local/common-lisp/ if you're into larger paths.
I think I will put "asdf" into the pathname, per our earlier discussion, so that we don't step on pre-existing paths.
~/asdf-local-paths/
would work for me.
I really don't like including asdf in the name, especially since other tools than asdf exist and may exist in the future, and will want to share the common-lisp source code hierarchy.
~/local/common-lisp/ has the advantage of being clutter-limiting, XDG-like if not strictly XDG, clean, etc., and just one character longer than your proposal.
I am less excited about the future and find it more appealing in terms of non-collision, to get "asdf" in the name. But I am willing to be overridden; my preference is weak.
OTOH, I don't like ~/local/common-lisp/ because it seems to me that the "local" pathname component doesn't mean anything. Its XDG-likeness seems to me a hazard -- it can be confused with ".local" and has no corresponding advantage.
Unless someone can convince me there's some useful tree to insert ourselves into, I think the default lisp code directory should be a direct subdirectory of ~, not an indirect one.
Does anyone have an argument for not being at the root?
~/common-lisp/ is slightly more pretentious, but probably works, too.
~/cl/ is taking a lot of familiarity, and maybe I should keep it my personal configuration rather than a recommended default.
These last two have been rejected by Pascal and others for what I feel are good reasons.
Thanks, everyone! I believe this discussion is leading us to a better place....
r