Nikodemus Siivola nikodemus@random-state.net writes:
On Tue, Oct 14, 2003 at 09:27:04AM +0200, Mario Mommer wrote:
How portable is it?
Fairly. On the lisp side UFFI is enough, plus sane NAMESTRING. Any lisp that doesn't return a namestring understandable to the OS deserves to lose.
Indeed! :-)
Some of the stuff sounds familiar to me. I know that most lisps have an environment variable facility, and also some functionality to deal with directory deletion/creation.
Correct. ...but since i'm not relying on the host-lisp's features the functionality should work across implementations.
(I'm not sure this belongs on this list, but) If you change an environment variable, how does the host Lisp know? :-)
Also, I dare to claim my interface is nicer than what average lisp offers:
Example:
;; Make *.sh in SBCL_HOME executable (with-directory-iterator (next (environment-variable 'sbcl_home)) (loop for entry = (next) while entry do (when (equal "sh" (pathaname-type entry)) (pushnew 'user-exec (file-permissions entry)))))
Looks sweet, certainly.
What are the differences to what PORT (from cclan) offers?
PORT tries to offer portablity between the functionality offered by various lisps, and is GPL. Osicat bases functionality on portable foreign interface and is MIT-licensed.
Well, PORT is LGPL which for some is allmost the same, but, fair enough.
Good questions!
You're wellcome :-)
Regards, Mario.