Re: [Sbcl-devel] MORE CODE LESS TEXT

[Daniel B. <da...@te...>]

William Harold Newman <wil...@ai...> writes:

> I've made a candidate patch doing much of the specific shortening you
> recommended, which hopefully will suit NS's tastes as well.

Looks good to me.  Go for it.

> +;;; 47: (2003-11-30) Static variables were rearranged in 0.8.6.11.

Ulp.  That one was mine, and it didn't even occur to me it'd break
fasls.  I guess if I were smart I'd have reused the now-deleted
*session-lock* offset for the new function, but it seemed to make more
sense to put it with the other functions.

It's astonishing just how much information there is in a fasl file
that should make it portable to a wide range of places and yet just
how easy it is to break fasl compatibility unthinkingly.  Maybe I
should do some cmucl hacking and hope that facing bootstrapping issues
would lead me to acquire a proper respect for binary compatibility


-dan

-- 

 http://web.metacircles.com/ - Open Source software development and support