On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 11:18 PM, Robert Goldman rpgoldman@sift.infowrote:
Right. But do we have a clear understanding of what should and shouldn't go in there? E.g.:
- currently if you need an ASDF extension in order to make a defsystem
understandable [...] 2. New class and method definitions. We don't have a good way to put them anywhere /but/ the .asd file for now.
I see the point about good coding practice, but I feel weird about telling people to use good coding practice at the same time telling them they have to use bad (non-declarative) coding practice, because there's no alternative!
Can you say more about what you'd like to do specifically? I don't want to discourage you from providing support for the sad lot of ASDF system definers ;-)!
Please understand that I did not intend to prevent people from writing their own system or operation classes. That would go against my own practice :-) If you read my email, it is for this reason that I explicitely added an :asdf-support file option, where ASDF extensions should be coded.
The problem, as I said, it is not extensions per se because they are needed to build the system. The problem is when people beging coding additional stuff -- I mentioned packages, but I have found classes, functions and other things that are not related to ASDF but are actually used by the code that the ASDF system is describing.
Juanjo