Re: wither ASDF

>:CY

> That's a policy decision on the part of each distribution.  The real answ=
er is probably to get the ANSI Common Lisp spec updated to include ASDF - u=
nfortunately that would involve re-building the teams officially able to do=
 so, and that's probably not happening any time soon (takes $$ to play).

No $$ needed - you can start with a CDR if you think ASDF is worth
standardizing. I don't think it is. Also realize that standardizing
ASDF and improving ASDF are opposite processes.

> It might be heresy to mention it here, but what does the ASDF crowd think=
 about XCVB?  Is it the "next generation" of ASDF?  Does it make design dec=
isions unacceptable to ASDF users?  Does it have good ideas?  Perhaps a via=
ble direction would be to ensure it can handle everything ASDF currently do=
es?

ASDF is software that runs. XCVB is currently a prototype plus lots of
vaporware. I think it has good ideas, but who am I to tell? There also
isn't a big code base preventing change by requiring backwards
compatibility. So if you're in for radical improvements (or
deprovements, at least, experiments), it's a place to look at.

> The two things that popped into my head right off were "is there anything=
 about XCVB that's worth a look" and "can/should some of the extensions bec=
ome part of the default package"?

At least the XCVB TODO file is worth a look :-) It's almost as big as
the XCVB code!

[ Fran=E7ois-Ren=E9 =D0VB Rideau | Reflection&Cybernethics | http://fare.tu=
nes.org ]
If it's not worth doing right, it's not worth doing. -- Scott McKay

---------------------------------------------------------------------------=
---
This SF.net email is sponsored by:
SourcForge Community
SourceForge wants to tell your story.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/sf-spreadtheword