[asdf-devel] BUILD-OP

[Robert P. Goldman]

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...

Best,
r