compatible defsystem?

Does anyone know of a portable defsystem which is compatible with
LW's?  I keep thinking I should write a better defsystem (I hate it
that in LW you can't distinguish between `has as a child system' and
`depends on'), but the environment support for it is sufficiently good
that I really don't want to (and I *definitely* don't want to use
MK:DEFSYSTEM), and I don't like having to maintain two
compile/load-mechanisms for things which I want to run in CLISP too or
something.

Thanks

--tim

Re: compatible defsystem?

Unable to parse email body. Email id is 233

Re: compatible defsystem?

Tim Bradshaw wrote:
> 
> Does anyone know of a portable defsystem which is compatible with
> LW's?  

Have you looked at ASDF, Another System Definition Facility
(http://ww.telent.net/cliki/asdf)?

Arthur Lemmens

Re: compatible defsystem?

Unable to parse email body. Email id is 237

Re: compatible defsystem?

* davef  wrote:

> It would be helpful to know what `depends on' means, that cannot be
> expressed with LW:DEFSYSTEM rules.

OK.  What I mean is that is I have a system A and a system B (or in
general thing A and thing B), I want to be able to say that B needs
something to happen to A before something can happen to it, without
having B be a child of A.  As far as I can see (and I may be wrong!)
you can assert relationships like this between members of a single
system, but not between systems.

The kind of case I am thinking of is where I have a FOO system and
then a TOOLS-USING-FOO system which wants to be able to say that it
needs FOO to be loaded, but doesn't want to make FOO be a child of it.

Most of the reason I want this, I admit, is because the current way of
doing things makes FOO be a child of TOOLS-USING-FOO in the system
browser and I'd like them to both be able to appear art top level...

--tim