[asdf-devel] BUILD-OP

[Stelian Ionescu]

On Thu, 2014-03-13 at 14:59 -0400, Zach Beane wrote:
> 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)
>     ...)

Good point.

-- 
Stelian Ionescu a.k.a. fe[nl]ix
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <https://mailman.common-lisp.net/pipermail/asdf-devel/attachments/20140313/11eb0865/attachment.sig>