On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 4:24 AM, Pascal J. Bourguignon <pjb@informatimago.com> wrote:
It is well known that implementations of CL pathnames have been greatly
implementation dependant.  However, the standard still specifies clear
behavior for logical pathnames, for one thing, and for the other, since
there are several implementations working on the same POSIX systems
(unix including linux and MacOSX; and MS-Windows), it is desirable that
all implementations converge in their handling of pathnames on these

I totally agree on this.
Personnaly, I resolved to use logical pathnames and logical-pathname
translations as much as possible, and to use make-pathname to build
portably physical pathnames.

I believe this is a wise choice, though it is not so well accepted in other forums (asdf) due to name clashing and lack of standardized support in most implementations.

However, most implementations have problems dealing with these two
aspects.   To improve the situation, I wrote a little script to check
the behavior of implementations in these two aspects.

Thanks a lot. It will be very useful
Since I'm sending a similar message to most implementation  lists, it
might be better, if there is any need for 'language lawyer' discussions,
to direct them to news:comp.lang.lisp.

There is an implementors mailing list and a cl-pro mailing list. I believe those are better places to discuss it.


Instituto de Física Fundamental, CSIC
c/ Serrano, 113b, Madrid 28006 (Spain)