On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 9:46 AM, Tobias C. Rittweiler tcr@freebits.de wrote:
Alan Ruttenberg alanruttenberg@gmail.com writes:
On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 9:20 AM, Mark Evenson evenson@panix.com wrote:
I added the [gist of Tobias' analysis in the Wiki][1].
Regarding the comment:
SWANK-COMPILE-STRING must be implemented on top of COMPILE-FILE, the current implementation is wrong.
Note that slime may assume that a running lisp has access to a writeable file system, which may not be the case. So this is probably too strong a constraint.
It's not about COMPILE-FILE per se: whatever is used should have the same semantics as file compilation, that's the point.
It can't have the same semantics as file compilation if it doesn't create a file. I get the idea, of course, but it would be good to clarify the expectations by giving the explicit requirements.
Best, Alan
Some implementations provide a COMPILE-FROM-STREAM or similiar where a string-stream can be feed to, for instance. Going over a temp file just happens to be the quickest road to success.
-T.
armedbear-devel mailing list armedbear-devel@common-lisp.net http://common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/armedbear-devel