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