Re: [clisp cvs] 'clisp/src ChangeLog,1.722,1.723 clhs.lsp,1.2,1.3'

[Bruno H. <ha...@il...>]

Sam writes:

>  >> What you said about pathname.d makes me think that we have already
>  >> too much code in .d files. Some of it would be more maintainable if
>  >> it were written in Lisp.
> 
> true - but this is a tradeoff between maintainability and performance,
> right? 

Right.

In the case of pathnames, is was a "tradeoff" between maintainability
and necessity: I wanted to be able to use a pathname in (load "init.lsp).

>  >> Don't bother about 'list-length-dotted' - define it twice, once in
>  >> package SYSTEM for DESCRIBE, and once in package SYS-INSPECT for
>  >> INSPECT. It is small enough; that won't hurt.
> 
> no matter how small, two identical functions is two different places is
> a recipy for disaster.

Code duplication inside a project is undesirable, I agree. But CLOCC and
CLISP are different projects, and if you need the same code in both, and
it's not standardized, put it in both. (*)

Bruno


(*) But don't make a symlink from the CLOCC CVS repository to the CLISP
repository! :-)