sionescu at cddr.org
Thu Mar 13 19:17:28 UTC 2014
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)
Stelian Ionescu a.k.a. fe[nl]ix
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
More information about the asdf-devel