[asdf-devel] BUILD-OP

[Faré]

Of course, I forgot to attach the patch. Here it is.
If you think it's satisfactory, I can push.

Hopefully, the added test will convince you that it is all working.

—♯ƒ • François-René ÐVB Rideau •Reflection&Cybernethics• http://fare.tunes.org
To converse at the distance of the Indes by means of sympathetic contrivances
may be as natural to future times as to us is a literary correspondence.
                — Joseph Glanvill, 1661


On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 7:11 PM, Faré <fahree at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 4:24 PM, Robert P. Goldman <rpgoldman at sift.info> wrote:
>> For the record, it's not that I'm objecting to the build-operation idea.
>>  I'm sorry if you got that idea, and felt that you had to spend a lot of
>> time convincing me!
>>
>> My concern was a much more limited one: that the word "build" doesn't
>> properly convey what is going to happen.
>>
> Well, ASDF itself has long been described as a build system or build tool
> (including in our ILC 2010 article), just like make, ant, etc.
> See also Wikipedia pages for each of these.
> What do these programs do? They build.
> I don't love the word, but I don't know a better one.
>
>> I believe that the operation is "prepare the direct object system for me
>> to use it."
>>
> Here are some suggestion:
>
> prepare (shorthand: p)
> update (shorthand: u)
> build (shorthand: b)
> build-and-update (shorthand: bu)
> build-and-maintain (shorthand: bnm, or |bnm,|, which perfectly fits
> the asdf keyboard pattern)
> build-operation or build-op (shorthand: bo, or bop)
> default-operation (shorthand: do, shadowing cl:do, or dop)
> operate 'build-op (shorthand: op, or ob)
> operate-default (shorthand: od)
> ok (shorthand: o)
> ensure-component-is-built-and-update-current-image-for-component
> (shorthand: ecibaucifc)
>
> If we pick the latter, we have utterly failed the user.
> Actually, I already have failed the user by naming the function build-system,
> which is too long a name, and deceiving because it's not just for systems:
> you can (build-system '("system" "module" "component")) to build a
> targetted component.
> Since obviously no one is using it yet, I propose we remove it from 3.1.
>
>> I don't think "build" is the right word for this, but I am happy to see
>> some sort of "do the default operation," as long as we can come up with
>> a name that conveys the meaning to the user.
>>
>> I think "build" in its normal sense has a connotation much closer to the
>> things that bundle-op or save-image-op would do.
>>
> I don't think it's right, only that it's the rightest available so far.
>
> PS: here is a second patch on top of the former one, that makes string
> designators for operations, so that :build-operation "foo::op" works.
> Added a suitable test for defsystem-depends-on to the test suite.
> Without this feature, build-op is much less useful.
>
> —♯ƒ • François-René ÐVB Rideau •Reflection&Cybernethics• http://fare.tunes.org
> The Party will yield power when and only when it is in the best interest of
> its members. Don't fight the Party: buy It with the profits of Liberty.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 0002-Accept-strings-as-OPERATION-class-designators-read-i.patch
Type: text/x-patch
Size: 14069 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://mailman.common-lisp.net/pipermail/asdf-devel/attachments/20140313/fdcc308c/attachment.bin>