Re: A :files clause and a possible change to parse-component-form

Gary King <[email protected]> writes:

> Overall, I think ASDF is very nice. There is one thing, however, which
> I dislike: the amount of boilerplate code involved in defining a
> system with many files when the dependencies are already encoded in
> the file ordering. As an example, I'd rather type
>
> (asdf:defsystem :eksl-utilities-base
>   :version "1.0"
>   :components ((:files ("package"

How would you feel if it were instead to accept "foo" as shorthand for
(:file "foo"), so you would write

(defsystem :eksl-utilities-base
   :version "1.0"
   :components ("package" "l0-utils" ...

Two notes.  First, I'm suggesting this without actually referring to
the code; I don't know if I've just managed to pick a syntax that
spanners something else.

Second, although it _should_ work to define a system by listing
components with the compilation dependency implicit in the ordering, I
think there may be bugs in practice.  So, watch out.  

Third, ("three reasons.  Surprise, fear, ...") if point 2 does bite
you, you can always use :serial t to introduce a recompile-if-changed
dependency at each stage.  You don't want to if you can avoid it,
because it means that every change to file 3 recompiles 4..n, but it's
a workaround in a pinch.


-dan

-- 

   http://web.metacircles.com/cirCLe_CD - Free Software Lisp/Linux distro

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQA/nxScHDK5ZnWQiRMRAjC9AJ9ks9ig2CoQg8O181fOHqhrZtBnsQCcD8mT
PY/15Fbk3Cuwapu7NC9t2rk=
=gXJ8
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----