Re: [Ilisp-devel] Re: [Ilisp-help] edit-definitions-lisp problems

[Lynn Q. <qu...@AI...>]

>  
>     BTW: I appreciate your suggestion to consider using SLIME . . .
>  
>  My suggestion?

Sorry, I got confused by another response from "Robert P. Goldman"
<rpg...@si...> who said:

>  
>  >>>>> "Lynn" == Lynn Quam <qu...@AI...> writes:
>  
>      >> With all due respect, is there some reason you are using ILISP instead
>      >> of Allegro's ELI?  
>  
>      Lynn> I almost exclusively use CMUCL since I am developing a
>      Lynn> system for open source distribution and assume than many or
>      Lynn> most users will not want to purchase Allegro.
>  
>  For license reasons, I like to have CMUCL ports of my software.  But
>  since my employers are willing to buy Allegro, I develop under
>  Allegro, with the superior Emacs interface and the better debugger,
>  and then try to port....
>  
>      >> When you are running Allegro, Ilisp is far less
>      >> capable than ELI, which can, e.g., ask the running lisp process to
>      >> find definitions for it.
>  
>      Lynn> Yes, I agree that ILISP has many deficiencies, primarily due to its
>      Lynn> communication with the Lisp subprocess.
>  
>  I think a lot of that has to do with the fact that ILISP cannot assume
>  that the subprocess can have multiple listeners, meaning that the
>  listener/repl state can (in my experience, often does) get gaffed.
>  
>  Have you looked into SLIME, the ILISP replacement?  Seems like the
>  CMUCL and SBCL developers, at least, have abandoned ILISP for
>  SLIME....
>  
>  Good luck!
>  R