On 6 July 2010 05:08, Benjamin Benninghofen Benjamin.Benninghofen@eads.com wrote:

Assume we have files "packages" "macros" "classes" "methods" "functions" and we want the following dependencies:

1. In order to compile or load any of the other files the file

"packages.fasl" must be loaded.

2. In order to compile or load "methods" the file "classes.fasl"

must be loaded.

3. The file "macros" contains macros used in "methods" and "functions"

and hence "macros.fasl" must be loaded before any of these 2 files   is compiled or loaded. Furthermore when "macros" is changed also   "methods" and "functions" have to be recompiled even if they are   unchanged.

4. There shall be no more dependencies, i.e. when a file different from

"macros" is changed, only this file shall be recompiled.

With the Symbolics System Construction Tool (SCT) one would use (:USES-DEFINITIONS-FROM macros) for methods and functions and (:IN-ORDER-TO (:COMPILE :LOAD) (:LOAD packages ...)) for the other dependencies. [...] For example when "classes" is changed it will recompile "methods" too. Is there anything in ASDF that provides the functionality of the SCT :IN-ORDER-TO ?

Dear Benjamin,

I don't think this is currently possible in ASDF, and moreover, I don't think it would be a good idea to add this feature. Indeed, not recompiling when something change means you introduce more non-deterministic state-dependence in compilation, and that things will fail in subtle ways when the declarations from files other that macros.lisp change - for instance, when you modify a class, an inline definition, etc. In these cases, I suppose the SCT relied on the user to force the recompilation, moving some of the dependency state from the machine to the user's head. Except that this doesn't scale to a half-a-million line program by tens of programmers.

I think this is bad practice. It would be more interesting if one could automatically extract fine-grained dependency and change information, and use that to drive recompilation. ASDF-DEPENDENCY-GROVEL tries to do that, but it's making crazy approximations, requires some user help, and only scales so well. Something based on actual code coverage could be better, but we don't have it.

[ François-René ÐVB Rideau | Reflection&Cybernethics | http://fare.tunes.org ] ... Any resemblance between the above views and those of my employer, my terminal, or the view out my window are purely coincidental. Any resemblance between the above and my own views is non-deterministic. The question of the existence of views in the absence of anyone to hold them is left as an exercise for the reader. The question of the existence of the reader is left as an exercise for the second god coefficient. (A discussion of non-orthogonal, non-integral polytheism is beyond the scope of this article.)