> Fair enough, but _is_ it written to? I believed that as the system
Try it. Just change the lisp to map it read-only and see what breaks.
That's how I did the lazy-allocation stuff ;-)
> was purified before it was dumped, basically everything should be in
> non-collected memory. On that basis, I can't see how it would be
> getting mutated.
When purify-ing again?
> I think that the answer is not to deliver as a core file, but instead
> to ship the standard core file as a "shared library" and label some
> other file "the application". Ideas?
cmucl debian package:
Use the BINFMT_MISC stuff in the kernel...
> "Persistent lisp server" is another way to ensure code sharing between
> apps, but my suspicion is that it makes it far too easy to stomp on
> someone else's application for it to be a generally good idea
IMHO Lisp supports the "save because the compiler makes it safe" model
of Bouroughs mainframes: trust the compiler to never emit 'bad' code...
See comp.folklore.computers recently.
If I understand the arguments correctly, they're doing something similar
It's logic Jim, but not as we know it. | pvaneynd@... for pleasure,
"God, root, what is difference?" - Pitr|
"God is more forgiving." - Dave Aronson| http://cvs2.cons.org/~pvaneynd/