On 5/19/11 May 19 -2:57 PM, Faré wrote:
: Pascal Costanza Because ASDF 2.x caused me some trouble in RMCL, I actually put some effort into learning logical pathnames - and they seem to work extremely well, as far as I can tell
Beware logical pathnames. They may "work extremely well" in some implementations, and completely differently in some other — or be absent or not well supported. In other words, they are not portable, not enough the extremely constrained subset that is defined as portable in the spec. That's the main reason why ASDF2, while it will let you use them, isn't based on them.
If you want to start on a crusade to the spec to be extended to be more useful and/or to get all Lisp implementations to actually use such a spec — I'm sure many CL users will love you (especially janderson!). Good luck.
(but it requires specifying :ignore-inherited-configuration in my source registry configuration, which seems somewhat unclean to me - but I don't really know...)
Why do you have to :ignore-inherited-configuration ??? Is there or was there something buggy in ASDF2? Why didn't you report the bug and get it fixed?
: Robert Goldman One undesirable feature is their refusal to permit filenames containing underscores or spaces:
word---one or more uppercase letters, digits, and hyphens.
And SBCL, being the language lawyering prick we love it to be, does enforce these limitations like all those it can from the standard. Of course, Corman doesn't have portable pathnames, I wouldn't trust GCL, and there might be bugs in ABCL, etc.
Whereas ACL being the commercial, we don't please the customer by nagging him, easygoing dude that he is, lets me write very useful (to me) logical pathname definitions that then blow up spectacularly when the language lawyer SBCL gets her hands on them....
If you use multiple lisp implementations, I'm now convinced that using logical pathnames is tantamount to taking a big pile of hours, putting them in an ashtray, and setting fire to them.