Well, ASDF doc (here: https://common-lisp.net/project/asdf/asdf/The-defsystem-form.html) is not that clear about this. It shows an example .asd file, which does have an in-package, albeit to package asdf-user, and says of it:The file starts with anin-package
form for packageasdf-user
. Quick summary: just do this, because it helps make interactive development ofdefsystem
forms behave in the same was as when these forms are loaded by ASDF. ... Thein-package
form will ensure that the system definition is read the same as within ASDF when you load it interactively withcl:load
. However, we recommend that you load .asd files through functionasdf::load-asd
rather than throughcl:load
, in which case this form is unnecessary.Don't mean to hijack usocket for ASDF complaints, but shouldn't asdf::load-asd be exported?Thanks,Mark----- Original message -----From: Zach Beane <xach@xach.com>To: "Mark H. David" <mhd@yv.org>Cc: usocket development <usocket-devel@common-lisp.net>Subject: Re: why is usocket.asd without an in-package or package qualifiers?Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2015 14:54:36 -0400ASDF establishes a particular environment when using asdf:find-system and asdf:load-system that is not duplicated by a plain CL:LOAD. It has always been this way. You cannot reliably use CL:LOAD to load a system file and have things work.ZachOn Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 2:50 PM, Mark H. David <mhd@yv.org> wrote:I notices there's no in-package or qualifiers present in usocket.asd.So you have to, it seems, do (in-package :asdf) or similar before loading this file.Is there any good reason for this? I was thinking of fixing this and doing a pull request. Anyone against?Thanks,Mark