On Thu, 2014-03-13 at 14:59 -0400, Zach Beane wrote: > Stelian Ionescu <sione...@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. -- Stelian Ionescu a.k.a. fe[nl]ix Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
