From: Nikodemus S. <nik...@ra...> - 2009-12-19 09:12:46
|
2009/12/18 Faré <fa...@gm...>: > [Was: Batteries-included SBCL] > > I'd argue that a better SERVE-EVENTS would be a real event loop, like > that of IOLib. There is widespread agreement here. Everyone I talked with about this at SBCL10 preferred tools to write their own even loop to having a magical but subtly broken one like SERVE-EVENT. > I'd even argue that SBCL should be using a copy of IOLib for its IO > subsystem, renaming the package into SB-IOLIB after compilation. > Similarly for BABEL, etc. Does IOLib does with Windows? Does is use CLOS? For our own IO subsystem we need something that hides the differences between Windows and POSIX and doesn't use CLOS. What I'm saying is that I don't think anyone particularly wants to maintain more software than they have to -- but replacing bits and parts of SBCL with external libraries libraries is not quite as simple as one could hope. With these caveats in mind, I do think that *if* the maintainer of library X agrees to play nice with us, there are cases where this might be very well worth looking into. Playing nice mostly means giving use enough rope for bootstrapping and caring about Windows at least as much as we do. (Obviously we aren't the shining example of Windows compatibility, but most days we do try to make things better there instead of worse...) Cheers, -- Nikodemus |