Re: Order of *CENTRAL-REGISTRY* traversal

On Dec 9, 2005, at 2:52 PM, Robert P. Goldman wrote:

> (asdf:shadowing-add-registry <newentry> asdf:*central-registry*)
> (asdf:add-registry <newentry> asdf:*central-registry*)
>
> This would provide a level of abstraction...

I like the level of abstraction but think that asdf:*central- 
registry* should not be at all exposed. I'd vote for

(asdf:shadowing-add-registry <new-entry>)
(asdf:add-registry <new-entry>)

FWIW, I don't like the name "shadowing-add-registry" but that's only  
because my brain can never remember whether I want to shadow or  
shadowing-import... Perhaps something like:

(asdf:add-registry <new-entry> &optional (precedence :higher))

where the precedence parameter could be either :higher or :lower).

Secondly, to help people writing ASDF extensions, it would also be  
nice to have something like

(defmacro with-central-registry (<pathnames> &body body)
	...)

in order to temporarily override the value of *central-registry*  
without exposing it to the world.


-- 
Gary Warren King
metabang.com
http://www.metabang.com/