Currently, the manual's discussion about logical pathnames states:
"Moreover, the `asdf-output-translation' layer will avoid trying to resolve and translate logical-pathnames, so you can define yourself what translations you want to use with the logical pathname facility."
IIUC, since a-o-t does not handle logical pathnames, it's not so much that you /can/ define the translations you want to use with the l-p facility as that you /must/ define the translations, or your binaries will go untranslated.
Do I understand this correctly? If so, any objection to my strengthening the wording here? I am making some minor tweaks to this section, which I was just in because I was on irc the other day helping Stellian and Raymond with some pathname issues in ASDF 2 compatibility.
Best, r
On 26 May 2010 09:32, Robert Goldman rpgoldman@sift.info wrote:
Currently, the manual's discussion about logical pathnames states:
"Moreover, the `asdf-output-translation' layer will avoid trying to resolve and translate logical-pathnames, so you can define yourself what translations you want to use with the logical pathname facility."
IIUC, since a-o-t does not handle logical pathnames, it's not so much that you /can/ define the translations you want to use with the l-p facility as that you /must/ define the translations, or your binaries will go untranslated.
Do I understand this correctly? If so, any objection to my strengthening the wording here? I am making some minor tweaks to this section, which I was just in because I was on irc the other day helping Stellian and Raymond with some pathname issues in ASDF 2 compatibility.
Yes. If you're using logical pathnames to name your files, you should be using logical pathnames for any output translations, too.
[ François-René ÐVB Rideau | Reflection&Cybernethics | http://fare.tunes.org ] ...so this guy walks into a bar. "The usual, Mr. Descartes?" the barman asked. "I think not," Rene replied, and promptly disappeared.
-
Faré -
Robert Goldman