On 3/30/10 Mar 30 -11:58 AM, james anderson wrote:
On 2010-03-30, at 16:42 , Robert Goldman wrote:
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? Iwould 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
it may be prone to break, but that just means one must pay attention.
it would be ok if, given just the host name, asdf were to assert translations which are the equivalent of the current binary mappings. if the argument is a translation specification, there is no reason not to believe it and apply it as given.
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.
my experience is that it depends entirely on whether the runtime supports versions at all. if one intended a logical host translation spec to behave "the same" on a runtime which supports file versions as on one which does not, one has to express the respective mappings correctly.
I believe that is correct. I think that on at least one of these platforms, it is customary to rewrite
"**;*.*.*" to "**/*.*"
to ensure that the version field is thrown away.
best, r