>: Didier Verna
>> Note that for ASDF 3, we intend to move towards having .asd files not
>> contain any code, only single (multilpe?) defsystem statements. Then,
>> you'd define your ASDF customizations in a separate system, and use
>> :defsystem-depends-on to depend on it.
>> This style isn't mandatory yet, but it might become so in the future.
>> If you use it today with ASDF 2, your code will be compiled and you
>> will be able to do introspection on it.
> Maybe I didn't understand you, but are you suggesting that ASDF 2 .asd
> files are compiled? Because I don't see this happening. Is there a
> configuration tweak that I need to know about somewhere ?
You quoted my last two lines out of context. When in context, it appears
that what I mean is not that you should just use ASDF2, but also use this
particular style that we want to promote, where a .asd file contains no
code whatsoever, and all code is moved to other systems that are required
at defsystem parsing time with :defsystem-depends-on. So: move you code
to some lisp file, create a foo.asd file that covers that asdf extension,
and use :defsystem-depends-on (:foo). It will then be compiled AND
more compatible with a future ASDF 3.
> [BTW, I just filled the bug reports that you requested on cll the other day.]
Thanks a whole lot!
[ François-René ÐVB Rideau | Reflection&Cybernethics | http://fare.tunes.org ]
The man who will use his skill and constructive imagination to see how much he
can give for a dollar, instead of how little he can give for a dollar, is bound
to succeed. — Henry Ford