From: Sam S. <sd...@gn...> - 2003-08-17 01:52:20
|
> * In message <185...@se...> > * On the subject of "clisp port of cl-xml" > * Sent on Sat, 16 Aug 2003 20:11:45 +0200 > * Honorable james anderson <jam...@se...> writes: > > i'm still inching forwards with compiling cl-xml on clisp and i have a > few more questions. none of the observations are new, it's just that > it would be nice to be able to guage how much time this is going to > take, and some idea of whether there might be plans to address any of > these issues in the near future - or one the other hand how intrinsic > they are to clisp, might give me an idea of whether it is worth > spending the time adapting to them > > 1. logical pathnames : > > as per earlier correspondence, translation must be expressed with > exactly the correct components as the object. is there any chance that > this will change? I am not sure CLISP is non-compliant here. Other implementations might be providing an extension. Patches are welcome. > 2. documentation does not accept a package, is not a generic, and > there is no setf. fixed in the CVS. > 3.metaclass defnitions require a (:metaclass structure-class) > i noted this in an earlier message, is this correct? CLISP is indeed not compliant here: STANDARD-OBJECT is supposed to be a STANDARD-CLASS and it is actually a STRUCTURE-CLASS. I am not sure how to fix this. > 4. defclass does not support forward references fixed in the CVS > 5. only the standard method combination > > it is easy enough to avoid defining new method combinations for the time > being, but it's not very productive to not have the simpler combinations > like and, or, progn. any prospects for improvement? Bruno said earlier this year that he was thinking about adding this feature, but I am not sure how far he got with it. -- Sam Steingold (http://www.podval.org/~sds) running w2k <http://www.camera.org> <http://www.iris.org.il> <http://www.memri.org/> <http://www.mideasttruth.com/> <http://www.honestreporting.com> Is there another word for synonym? |