Faré <fahree@...> wrote:
> On 30 September 2010 12:51, Didier Verna <didier@...> wrote:
>> Nikodemus Siivola wrote:
>>> ASDF2 does the reading, so --script has no effect.
>> Yeah, I figured that much. But my concern was more along the lines of
>> whether the current behavior is going to stay, or ...
>>> The most SBCL can do is to provide a way to detect if it has been
>>> invoked with --script.
>> ... whether something like this will be used in future SBCL to prevent
>> ASDF from reading the config file, which again would seem more coherent
>> to me.
> You could open a bug for ASDF to change its behavior, but what exactly
> do you expect ASDF to do?
I don't know, really :-) Like I said, I happen to like the current
behavior, because it makes my life simpler, but there is something not
totally coherent wrt the way SBCL used to behave with ASDF 1. Let me
- with SBCL / ASDF 1, the only way a user could configure the source
registry was to set *central-registry* from a lisp file, typically
.sbclrc. So when using scbl --script, that file is skipped, and so is
the ASDF configuration.
- now, the user would set the source registry in the config file, but
then sbcl --script will still read it (because in fact, it is ASDF that
So the consequence is that from one version of SBCL to another, there
will be a change in behavior. I just thought the issue was important
enough to be raised, eventhough I'm not totally clear on which behavior
makes more sense.
Resistance is futile. You will be jazzimilated.
Scientific site: http://www.lrde.epita.fr/~didier
Music (Jazz) site: http://www.didierverna.com