Comment 8 for bug 479470

"Robert P. Goldman" <email address hidden> writes:

> Any objections to adding a :doc-depends-on to defsystem? There's
> usually a system that must be loaded in order to generate the docs (and
> which need not be loaded otherwise).
>
> Yes, I know one can write
>
> (in-order-to (doc-op (load-op "albert")))
>
> but that seems relatively long-winded....

I don't like the abbreviation. People should get used to IN-ORDER-TO
because it's the thing they have to know about to keep system
definitions declarative -- which is important for static analyzing
tools.

And if you introduce a :DOC-DEPENDS-ON, then you should also introduce a
:TEST-DEPENDS-ON because TEST-OP most often has some dependency, too.

Personally, I'd rather change the syntax on IN-ORDER-TO to the following
because I find the current syntax not very mnemonic.

(IN-ORDER-TO DOC-OP :PERFORM (LOAD-OP "albert") (LOAD-OP "foo"))

That would not allow to specify several dependencies into one
IN-ORDER-TO clause -- which I actually think is a good thing, because
it's (imho anyway) cleaner to specify each in its own clause.

The change would be backwards-compatible.

  -T.

--
Diese Nachricht wurde auf Viren und andere gefaerliche Inhalte untersucht
und ist - aktuelle Virenscanner vorausgesetzt - sauber.
Freebits E-Mail Virus Scanner