[asdf-devel] BUILD-OP

[Zach Beane]

Stelian Ionescu <sionescu at cddr.org> writes:

> On Thu, 2014-03-13 at 13:40 -0500, Robert P. Goldman wrote:
>> I'm a little concerned about making BUILD-OP be the default operation.
>> 
>> It seems to me that "BUILD" is not a good synonym for "LOAD," which is
>> how BUILD-OP is currently interpreted.
>
> I agree.
>
>
>> I think the conventional interpretation of the word "build" would
>> suggest to the user that
>> 
>> (build "foo-system")
>> 
>> would compile and NOT load "foo-system," instead of performing LOAD-OP
>> as now.  To me "build" does not connote "load."
>> 
>> Is this just me?  What's the sense of the community?
>> 
>> Should we use a different term?  I realize that LOAD is taken, and
>> shadowing CL:LOAD would be a big PITA.  Is there a synonym we can use?
>
> Not necessarily a PITA. Does any package :use ASDF ? 

It's not uncommon to see a given system file define a package like:

  (defpackage foo-system
    (:use cl asdf)
    ...)

Zach