Robert P. Goldman
rpgoldman at sift.info
Thu Mar 13 18:57:58 UTC 2014
Stelian Ionescu wrote:
> 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.
Let's continue this discussion until we get somewhere we're happy with.
I'm going to put the BUILD-OP changes into a topic branch for now.
If necessary, build-op (by some name) can wait until after 3.2...
More information about the asdf-devel