From: Aleksej S. <as...@ho...> - 2007-09-15 15:55:05
|
Christophe Rhodes <cs...@ca...> writes: >> There's no other Common Lisp implementaion. >> Can you suggest specific one, which could be compiled within usual >> UNIX and alike framework? > > No. (Well, that depends slightly on whether Java counts as being > within a usual UNIX and alike, but "no" is probably the simplest > answer.) Well, Java is no better. > The alternative to building with a lisp that is not CLISP is to do > some work to debug the CLISP build failures; a first step would be to > eliminate all things that can vary between builds: records of > pathnames, timestamps and the like, and then do a byte-for-byte > comparison of cross-compiler fasl files between say CLISP and SBCL. > That would be worthy work, but is clearly some effort -- but maybe > less effort for you than to use something other than CLISP, I don't > know. If you're interested in doing some of this work, I can provide > a starting point. Alright. I see no other way currently. Should I contact CLISP developers? |