Gary King wrote:

Hi Daniel,

faslpath looks... interesting but inflexible. It seems to make the package file equivalent to the system definition. I'm not sure how it would integrate. Are you suggesting

(asdf:oos 'asdf:load-op 'foo :use-faslpath t)

or something like that?

I don't mean to seem negative, but my reaction is like Gary's. I don't like the java-style rigidity of the file->package->filesystem mapping that faslpath enforces.

That said, if faslpath were to achieve some mindshare, it doesn't seem like it would be hard to make asdf able to load dependencies that are faslpath systems.

But until such mindshare appears, I'm disinclined to take on extra work to support it.

Best,

r

thanks,

On Jun 9, 2009, at 10:15 PM, Daniel Herring wrote:

...

http://code.google.com/p/faslpath/

While I don't think its right for everything, faslpath follows a Java-style naming convention that does simplify the build process.

How hard would it be to mix this in with ASDF? So project.asdf would simply specify a (:faslpath toplevel.lisp) or something.

Just a thought... I don't have time in the forseeable future to work on it. :(

• Daniel

---

asdf-devel mailing list asdf-devel@common-lisp.net http://common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/asdf-devel

-- Gary Warren King, metabang.com Cell: (413) 559 8738 Fax: (206) 338-4052 gwkkwg on Skype * garethsan on AIM * gwking on twitter

---

asdf-devel mailing list asdf-devel@common-lisp.net http://common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/asdf-devel