From: Caitlin <bio...@gm...> - 2012-10-18 01:06:34
|
Hi all. With no update from 2.49 for over two years, I was wondering if clisp is dead. Thanks. |
From: Reini U. <ru...@x-...> - 2012-10-18 01:34:44
|
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 8:06 PM, Caitlin <bio...@gm...> wrote: > With no update from 2.49 for over two years, I was wondering if clisp is > dead. You are mixing up the definition of stable with dead. -- Reini Urban http://cpanel.net/ http://www.perl-compiler.org/ |
From: Caitlin <bio...@gm...> - 2013-01-03 08:27:42
|
Isn't there a fine line between stability and stagnation? On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 6:34 PM, Reini Urban <ru...@x-...> wrote: > On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 8:06 PM, Caitlin <bio...@gm...> wrote: > > With no update from 2.49 for over two years, I was wondering if clisp is > > dead. > > You are mixing up the definition of stable with dead. > -- > Reini Urban > http://cpanel.net/ http://www.perl-compiler.org/ > |
From: Michael K. <mic...@gm...> - 2012-10-19 21:50:12
|
On 10/18/2012 03:06 AM, Caitlin wrote: > Hi all. > > With no update from 2.49 for over two years, I was wondering if clisp is > dead. I sincerely hope that CLISP is not dead! It seems to me, however, the next release is on hold because the Windows branch needs some care that no one currently wants to give. And there were updates of course, just no release. For what it's worth, I haven't really contributed anything to CLISP yet but I'm working on a GTK+ 3 module that I want to release soon now (but for now, Linux only...) Michael -- |
From: Pascal J. B. <pj...@in...> - 2013-01-03 11:42:27
|
Caitlin <bio...@gm...> writes: > Isn't there a fine line between stability and stagnation? We don't have a moving target, the CL standard is always the same. Once we have 100% conformance, we can't get 101% conformance. Have you found any conformance bug? Otherwise, we may add or improve on features, but consider that a lot of features can be implemented as implementation independent libraries. Only a few features need implementation support. So, we could make a list of features it would be nice to have (eg. on http://cliki.net) and dispatch those features that would require implementation support (write a CDR for them [1]), and those features that can be implemented as a library (write a library). For example, I've heard slime would like a better API to get (or perhaps just access to) debugging information about byte-compiled code (notably with (optimize (debug 3))). This indeed would require some implementation specific work. But on the other hand, we may want a debugger-in-time feature, and this could be implemented AFAIK as well as a conforming library rather than an implementation specific feature. (Just like I wrote my cl-stepper [2]). [1] http://cdr.euro-lisp.org [2] http://www.informatimago.com/develop/lisp/com/informatimago/common-lisp/lisp/ -- __Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/ A bad day in () is better than a good day in {}. |