Re: [PATCH] Proposal: implement feature-dependent-op

Richard M Kreuter <[email protected]> writes:

[ brief first impressions only ]

> * the feature testing done by :in-order-to ((... (feature ...)))
>   doesn't support the composite feature expressions that read-time
>   conditionals do.  Is this omission intended?

I'm not sure.  I think I would support the inclusion of composite
expression support.

> * the in-order-to notation looks like it applies only to direct
>   instances of the operation classes named in the defsystem form, and
>   not to instances of subclasses (example below [*]).  This seems like
>   a bug; is it intended?

That definitely looks wrong.

> * is there any other way to specify that the component-pathname of a
>   module is the same as that of its parent other than the defsystem
>   syntax :pathname "."?  Does :pathname "." work the same way
>   everywhere?

For what it's worth, I believe the pedantically correct way of
indicating this is 
  :pathname #.(make-pathname :directory '(:relative))
but I appreciate that this is a bit of a mouthful.

Cheers,

Christophe

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your
opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys - and earn cash
http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV