[Maxima-discuss] test failures for Allegro CL, was: obsolete and other Lisp implementations, was: Trying to accommodate GCL is keeping us from making progress

[Robert D. <rob...@gm...>]

Richard, I'm taking the liberty of forwarding your message to the
mailing list, as I don't have any specific information about the test
failures for Allegro CL.

best,

Robert

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Richard Fateman <fa...@gm...>
Date: Tue, Oct 18, 2022 at 10:46 AM
Subject: Re: [Maxima-discuss] obsolete and other Lisp implementations,
was: Trying to accommodate GCL is keeping us from making progress
To: Robert Dodier <rob...@gm...>
Cc: Richard Fateman <fa...@gm...>


I don't want to make a fuss over it, but I'm curious as to why Allegro
CL did not pass the
test suite.  It is, supposedly, a standards-conforming implementation.
I see a few
possibilities.  1. The free version is not the full standard, and that
is the one that was
tested.  2. The free version doesn't have the "extensions" to link to
plotting etc programs.
3. There are subtle differences, e.g. in floating-point printing, or
the results of math
libraries, or in exception handling or some other areas where the
standard is vague,
but the test suite is quite specific.  I don't know to what extent the
test suite allows for
variations within the constraints of the standard.
(Some same issues with other non-SBCL implementations.  I think of the
SBCL version
as setting a more detailed standard than merely "ANSI CL". )
Richard



On Tue, Oct 18, 2022 at 1:33 PM Robert Dodier <rob...@gm...> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Oct 17, 2022 at 2:04 PM Wolfgang Dautermann
> <wol...@da...> wrote:
>
> > Maybe - if Camm Maguire reads that list - it would make sense to create
> > a real new *release* - 2.6.13 - in the near future, not just 124
> > 2_6_13pre-versions? Gcl seemms to be actively maintained (although there
> > seems to be just one developer for several years, a pity...).
>
> If ever the lacking features are implemented for GCL, then we can
> circle back. I'm not opposed to GCL, I'm opposed to passing up various
> features for Maxima because GCL doesn't provide the necessary
> implementation.
>
> > If "code cleanup" (removal of current configure-options, and currently
> > working code in the Maxima code base) is the target, maybe the "support"
> > for "Scieneer Common Lisp (SCL)" should be removed - it is/was
> > commercial software and their website does no longer exist.
>
> Yes, we can just cut out all of the SCL stuff.
>
> > And maybe for GCL the current code (code for ./configure-options, ...)
> > for GCL should be kept, but we might call it a 'not recommended (or not
> > very well tested) compiler'? Or somethin similar?
>
> I'm against it. "Not very supported" will mean in practice that we
> can't clean up GCL-related cruft.
>
> FWIW
>
> Robert
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Maxima-discuss mailing list
> Max...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/maxima-discuss