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. -- Stelian Ionescu a.k.a. fe[nl]ix Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
