Re: defsystem vs asdf

Marco Antoniotti <[email protected]> writes:

> On Aug 16, 2005, at 3:30 PM, Paolo Amoroso wrote:
>
>> Sam Steingold <[email protected]> writes:
>>
>>> is it true that "defsystem is dead and everyone should switch to
>>> asdf"?
>>
>> I don't know whether DEFSYSTEM is dead.  But I would use CLOCC
>> subsystems much more if there was support for ASDF.
>>
>
> But MK:DEFSYSTEM supports subsystems in a nicer way than ASDF.  So,
> the question is why don't you give it a spin.

I probably didn't explain correctly what I meant.  By "CLOCC
subsystem" I simply mean some library or tool included in CLOCC.  I
would like to be able to to with ASDF do something like:

  (asdf:operate 'asdf:load-op :cllib) ; src/cllib

or even:

  (asdf:operate 'asdf:load-op :gnuplot)   ; src/cllib/gnuplot

or also:

  (defsystem my-app
      :depends-on (net shell gnuplot) ; src/port/net, src/port/shell, src/cllib/gnuplot
      ...)

Is this what you mean?  In any case, I personally feel more
"comfortable" with ASDF, and use it for all my projects.


Paolo
-- 
Lisp Propulsion Laboratory log - http://www.paoloamoroso.it/log


-------------------------------------------------------
SF.Net email is Sponsored by the Better Software Conference & EXPO
September 19-22, 2005 * San Francisco, CA * Development Lifecycle Practices
Agile & Plan-Driven Development * Managing Projects & Teams * Testing & QA
Security * Process Improvement & Measurement * http://www.sqe.com/bsce5sf