On 3/30/10 Mar 30 -9:29 AM, Juan Jose Garcia-Ripoll wrote:
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 4:25 PM, Robert Goldman <rpgoldman@sift.info mailto: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
I agree. In particular, I have vague memories of differences between ACL and SBCL on how to handle the *.*.* versus *.*, but this is lost in my neural network.
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.
Minor suggestion: for extensibility, uniformity, etc., would a variant where we automagically create
CL-PPCRE:SRC; and CL-PPCRE:FASL;
be an acceptable choice?
I like this for orthogonality, and because I've always been a bit unhappy using a logical pathname with just a device --- too reminiscent of Windows' C:Foo!
Also, it seems like a cleaner path to allowing the user to extend the logical pathnames for the system's host.
Not a big deal; just thought I would offer this as an early-stage suggestion.
Best, r