> From: Bruno Haible <haible@...>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Cc: clocc-devel@..., sbcl-devel@...,
> Sender: clocc-devel-admin@...
> X-BeenThere: clocc-devel@...
> X-Mailman-Version: 2.0
> Precedence: bulk
> List-Help: <mailto:clocc-devel-request@...>
> List-Post: <mailto:clocc-devel@...>
> List-Subscribe: <http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/clocc-devel>,
> List-Id: <clocc-devel.lists.sourceforge.net>
> List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/clocc-devel>,
> List-Archive: <http://lists.sourceforge.net/archives//clocc-devel/>
> Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 14:27:28 +0100 (CET)
> Content-Length: 1421
> Raymond Wiker writes:
> > Hi. I'm wondering whether it would make sense to place CLX
> > under CLOCC. CLX is a an implementation of Xlib for Common Lisp, i.e,
> > a low-level library for working with the X Window System.
> It depends on the amount of changes you intend to make.
> Do you plan to move CLX from X11R4 to X11R5 and X11R6 level? If so
> (that's quite a lot of work), it'd very good if it was in CLOCC and
> shared among implementations.
I would second that, however, I would suggest that care should be
taken to avoid dependencies on other parts of CLOCC. All in all it
should stay self contained. I would go as far as proposing a
separate Sourceforge project.
Moreover, there is the issue of Copyright. What's the status?
> Other than that, I (as the maintainer of CLX for CLISP) don't see the
> point of some of your proposed modifications:
> > - CLX generally needs some work to be made more portable, and
> > to become a better fit to the ANSI standard for Common Lisp
> > (e.g, replace CLX's proprietary defsystem with a defsystem
> > defintion that uses mk:defsystem
> ANSI CL and mk:defsystem has nothing to do with each other. I'm happy
> with the clx/defsystem because it is extremely lightweight.
Although I obviously do not completely agree with this view (after all
MK:DEFSYSTEM is messy, not heavyweight), I can see how maintaining the
CLX:DEFSYS has its advantages. I would develop a MK:DEFSYSTEM
alongside the regular one and see what time will tell.
> > replace a number of
> > "defconstant"s with either "defparameter" or a combination
> > of "defconstant"/"load-time-value".)
> What's the point? These "defconstants" are perfectly valid. And
> defconstant allows the compiler to do optimizations which either
> "defparameter" or "defconstant"/"load-time-value" don't allow.
I agree with this. All in all X11R6 compliance should take top
Marco Antoniotti =============================================================
NYU Bioinformatics Group tel. +1 - 212 - 998 3488
719 Broadway 12th Floor fax +1 - 212 - 995 4122
New York, NY 10003, USA http://galt.mrl.nyu.edu/valis
Like DNA, such a language [Lisp] does not go out of style.
Paul Graham, ANSI Common Lisp