gcl-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Gcl-devel] Re: "COMMON-LISP" package in GCL 2.5.0


From: Camm Maguire
Subject: Re: [Gcl-devel] Re: "COMMON-LISP" package in GCL 2.5.0
Date: 10 Aug 2002 14:51:46 -0400

Greetings!

Matt Kaufmann <address@hidden> writes:

> Thanks.  So, probably it's the case that as long as the LISP package exists, 
> we
> can rename COMMON-LISP without breaking GCL.  Do I have that right?  That
> should be fine for purposes of ACL2, where we do something like this.
> 

Should work, as Greg notes.  will become unnecessary if/when I escape
the common-lisp package with the --enable-ansi configuration option.

> (let ((lisp-pkg (find-package "LISP")))
>   (when lisp-pkg
>     (rename-package "COMMON-LISP" "COMMON-LISP-renamed")
>     (let ((old-name (package-name lisp-pkg)) ; reuse old name, nicknames
>         (old-nicknames (package-nicknames lisp-pkg)))
>       (rename-package "LISP"
>                      old-name
>                      (cons "COMMON-LISP" old-nicknames)))))
> 
> >> (with the goal of a clean, multi-platform build of maxima and maybe
> >> acl2) ....
> 
> It would be great to know that ACL2 runs under GCL on a variety of platforms!

What platforms are supported via the other lisps you use?

Take care,

> If I can be of any assistance in helping you test ACL2, please let me know.
> 
> Thanks --
> -- Matt
>    From: Gregory Wright <address@hidden>
>    Cc: address@hidden, address@hidden, address@hidden
>    Content-Type: text/plain
>    Date: 10 Aug 2002 12:07:43 -0400
> 
>    On Sat, 2002-08-10 at 11:33, Matt Kaufmann wrote:
>    > Thanks.  Will COMMON-LISP and LISP ultimately be the same package?  That 
> is,
>    > will this form return true?
>    > 
>    > (eq (find-package "LISP") (find-package "COMMON-LISP"))
>    > 
> 
>    No, this should never be so. As gcl moves toward ansi common lisp, the
>    symbols in LISP should be moved to COMMON-LISP. Anything left over
>    (i.e., in gcl's LISP but not part of the 978 symbols of ansi
>    COMMON-LISP) should be moved into a compatibility package. The package
>    LISP should go away since it is a confusing remnant of the days when the
>    language was specified by the CLtL book.
> 
>    But this brings up a good point---the moves toward ansi-fication are in
>    conflict with getting the basic bugs out of gcl and reliable cross
>    platform builds.
> 
>    Which leads to a proposal: sometime soon, perhaps just after 2.5.0 is
>    released, we branch the cvs, with the branch being 2.5.x maintenance
>    (with the goal of a clean, multi-platform build of maxima and maybe
>    acl2) and a development branch headed for ansi compliance. The
>    development branch is allowed to break backward compatibility with 2.5.x
>    and earlier.
> 
>    The development branch could still support special features or
>    compatibility modes but it would not be a _requirement_.
> 
>    What do people think?
> 
>    Best Wishes,
>    Greg
> 
> 
>    -- 
> 
>    Gregory Wright
>    Chief Technical Officer
>    PacketStorm Communications, Inc.
>    20 Meridian Road
>    Eatontown, New Jersey 07724
> 
>    1 732 544-2434 ext. 206
>    1 732 544-2437 [fax]
>    address@hidden
> 
> 

-- 
Camm Maguire                                            address@hidden
==========================================================================
"The earth is but one country, and mankind its citizens."  --  Baha'u'llah




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]