Here comes my first stranger-in-a-stange-land question.
I am busy learning to use asdf. The asdf manual refers to defining "systems." It is not clear to me whether the term "system" has a formal definition in lisp, or rather is used loosely. I see that the CL ansi spec has a chapter (ch. 24) on System Construction, but this does not elucidate much (for me).
For asdf purposes, does "system" mean something specific, or does it just mean a bunch of lisp bits that make up a useful chunk of software?
A system is a collection of packages; you tell ASDF which are the main ones and how they fit in with other packages (their dependencies, from where they get some of their functionality). I guess that's as specific as the definition could get :-P
David Penton wrote:
Here comes my first stranger-in-a-stange-land question.
I am busy learning to use asdf. The asdf manual refers to defining "systems." It is not clear to me whether the term "system" has a formal definition in lisp, or rather is used loosely. I see that the CL ansi spec has a chapter (ch. 24) on System Construction, but this does not elucidate much (for me).
For asdf purposes, does "system" mean something specific, or does it just mean a bunch of lisp bits that make up a useful chunk of software?
toronto-lisp mailing list toronto-lisp@common-lisp.net http://common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/toronto-lisp
On Sat, Sep 26, 2009 at 12:50 PM, Rudolf Olah omouse@gmail.com wrote:
A system is a collection of packages; you tell ASDF which are the main ones and how they fit in with other packages (their dependencies, from where they get some of their functionality). I guess that's as specific as the definition could get :-P
I'd throw in the nuance that "system" also has something to do with the underlying Lisp implementation.
In the days of Lisp Machines, the "system" meant the whole ball of wax including operating system.
Note in the Hyperspec: http://www.lispworks.com/documentation/HyperSpec/Body/26_glo_s.htm A "System class" is of type "built-in-class", so it cannot be used to define subclasses...
This points somewhat at this nuance...
-
Christopher Browne -
David Penton -
Rudolf Olah