Robert P. Goldman
rpgoldman at sift.info
Fri Mar 14 13:28:03 UTC 2014
>> I get it, but now ASDF does more than one kind of build, including some
>> > things (with the bundle-op) that look a lot more like what 'make' does
>> > than what ASDF has done up to now.
> Indeed. On the other hand, you just acknowledged that all these things
> are a kind of "build".
I don't think there IS a single word that captures these two radically
different things, so what's the advantage to papering over their
differences by using a single word?
I.e., I push a button, and it either loads a system into my running lisp
image (possibly without building *anything*), or builds a stand-alone
executable. Why would I want a single button, or a single word, to use
for both of these operations?
I suppose the counter-argument is that there IS a thing those two
operations have in common: each is the default operation for the
That seems reasonable: the system author might want to create and
deliver a system that is intended to be a standalone executable, and is
never meant to be integrated into a running lisp image.
In that case, maybe instead of trying to take a real English word that
already has a meaning, we should take a short phrase that means exactly
what we will do:
to be shortened to
[I don't like DoS or DDoS for obvious reasons! ;-)]
I think DEFAULT-OP is a better name than BUILD-OP because it says what
More information about the asdf-devel