Re: [Sbcl-devel] cmucl (sbcl) doc patch?

[William H. N. <wil...@ai...>]

On Sat, Nov 25, 2000 at 07:20:09PM +0100, ma...@at... wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> working on my cmucl-list of patches, I found one documentation patch by
> Raymond toy.
> This affects doc/cmucl/internals/object.tex.
> I've looked at that, but I can't really figure it out, if this is
> correct for the current state of SBCL, or not.
> I hope, at least reporting this "finding" again makes sense.

Thank you. I think that the information on the fill pointer being 29
bits and so forth is probably correct for SBCL (and for the CMU CL
version that I forked SBCL from). Certainly a fair amount of the
internals documentation was slightly out of date at the time of the
fork, and 29 bits sounds right. However, it will take some work for me
to check it, and I may not get to it for a while.

I don't consider separate "internals" documentation for the codes
(134, 138, 186, etc.) to be useful, since it duplicates
automatically-up-to-date information in sbcl.h. I think it's pretty
wasteful to try to maintain duplicate information by hand when we have
expressive software and fast computer systems to do it for us. So
rather than checking and tweaking that section of the patch for SBCL,
I'm more likely to just delete that table from the internals
documentation.

I've been meaning to split the old doc/cmucl/ stuff out of the main
sbcl source package into a separate old-cmucl-docs package. Maybe I'll
get around to it, and this update from Raymond Toy, when I am happier
with the stability of the 0.6.x branch. (Does anyone have any
patches to make SIGINT handling more reliable?:-)

-- 
William Harold Newman <wil...@ai...>
software consultant
PGP key fingerprint 85 CE 1C BA 79 8D 51 8C  B9 25 FB EE E0 C3 E5 7C