On Thu, 2014-03-13 at 14:59 -0400, Zach Beane wrote:
Stelian Ionescu sionescu@cddr.org writes:
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 ?
It's not uncommon to see a given system file define a package like:
(defpackage foo-system (:use cl asdf) ...)
Good point.