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
