On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 11:18 PM, Robert Goldman <rpgoldman@sift.info> wrote:
Right.  But do we have a clear understanding of what should and
shouldn't go in there?  E.g.:
1.  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

--
Instituto de Física Fundamental, CSIC
c/ Serrano, 113b, Madrid 28006 (Spain)
http://tream.dreamhosters.com