[asdf-devel] BUILD-OP

Stelian Ionescu sionescu at cddr.org
Thu Mar 13 18:50:12 UTC 2014

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 ? Otherwise you'd get
away with qualifying cl:load in uiop-build/load* and shadowing it in a
few packages.

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/20140313/5116465a/attachment.sig>

More information about the asdf-devel mailing list