[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [Gcl-devel] condition system proposal

From: Peter Wood
Subject: Re: [Gcl-devel] condition system proposal
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2002 07:42:12 +0100
User-agent: Mutt/1.4i


On Mon, Nov 04, 2002 at 01:50:55PM +0300, Vadim V. Zhytnikov wrote:
> It seems that Peter is doing right things.  Great!
> But I just wonder can we really bring conditions
> in sync with ANSI CL standard using the way
> GCL ansi image is build now with successive
> addition PCS as CLCS (conditions).  If not
> then we sooner or later have to recreate
> build process from scratch.

This sounds right.  I'd be really interested to hear what you think
this build process should look like (potentially).

> Second point is serror.lsp and SERROR
> package.  As far as I understand this
> is old substitute for CL conditions.
> Can we get rid of this package as soon
> as ANSI conditions are in place?
> On the other hand I know that now
> Maxima relies on SERROR.

Yes. I think achieving ANSI compliance and maintaining backward
compatibility with packages that need a CLTL1 are going to prove to be
_incompatible_ goals.  I'm afraid we need to decide what we want to
do: maintain a CLTL1, or make an ANSI Common LIsp (or both -

Camm, you have said that maintaining compatibilty with Maxima/ACL2 is
a requirement (along with support for the 11 Debian architecures).
Would you be amenable to an 'experimental' branch which aims at strict
compliance and is allowed to have a narrower focus?  I know you have
said before that you would prefer to avoid this.


reply via email to

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