Robert P. Goldman
rpgoldman at sift.info
Fri Mar 14 03:32:35 UTC 2014
> 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 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.
Up to now, there's been no real need to distinguish between "build" and
"load", but now there are things that look like a conventional C program
build, rather than like what DEFSYSTEM did before.
Let's not rush into this: as Attila has pointed out, whatever we choose,
we'll have to live with for a long while.
Unfortunately, I think both DO and LOAD are non-starters because of the
pain they would impose on anyone who wants to USE-PACKAGE ASDF.
What about something bland like "start"? Or we could get all Star Trek
and use "make it so" ;-)
More information about the asdf-devel