One thing that may be interesting considering is to submit all CDRs to ArXiv.

Marco

On Feb 17, 2013, at 08:08 , Pascal Costanza pc@p-cos.net wrote:

Hi,

Sounds good…

Pascal

On 15 Feb 2013, at 20:22, Marco Antoniotti marcoxa@cs.nyu.edu wrote:

...

Hi

how about setting up an "official" CDR meeting at ECLM and ELS 2013?

Just an idea….

-- Marco Antoniotti

---

cdr-discuss mailing list cdr-discuss@common-lisp.net http://lists.common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cdr-discuss

-- Pascal Costanza

-- Marco Antoniotti

Marco Antoniotti marcoxa@cs.nyu.edu wrote:

so, is there any interest in making a CDR BoF at ECLM or ELS?

I'm interested, but I wouldn't want to do this on Sunday. Monday or Tuesday could work.

I have a few ideas about a (short) list of topics for discussion.

Could you tell us a bit more before we meet?

Arthur

Marco Antoniotti wrote:

so, is there any interest in making a CDR BoF at ECLM or ELS? I have a few ideas about a (short) list of topics for discussion.

<me too>

Hi

I am leaving the Wed. 5th very early, so I am all for a Tuesday meeting.

I like the topics that Pascal B. mentioned, but I think I'd like to discuss a few things "meta" above all. E.g., I'd like to discuss how to have the implementors adopt a CDR and how to enthuse people to write CDRs.

all the best

Marco

On May 28, 2013, at 14:32 , Pascal Bourguignon pjb@informatimago.com wrote:

On 05/28/2013 10:51 AM, Didier Verna wrote:

...

Marco Antoniotti wrote:

...

so, is there any interest in making a CDR BoF at ECLM or ELS? I have a few ideas about a (short) list of topics for discussion.

<me too>

I won't be able to come, but here are a few CDR topics I'd like to work on if/when I had/will have the time:

• customizable parser (parse-token hook in readtables); but there are some non trivial points.

• a specification of the mapping of logical pathnames to POSIX paths.

• a specification of the mapping of POSIX paths to physical pathnames.

• a few portability libraries where basically most implementations provide most of the features, but possibly with gratuituously different API could attain the status of CDR, so as to promote more common implementations of those features (and possibly the elimination of the need of those portability library. RUN-PROGRAM, FFI, threads, sockets, etc).

Later I will open a cliki page to list the subjets worth of a CDR.

-- __Pascal Bourguignon__

-- Marco Antoniotti

From: Marco Antoniotti marcoxa@cs.nyu.edu Date: Mon, 27 May 2013 23:17:46 +0200

Dear all,

so, is there any interest in making a CDR BoF at ECLM or ELS? I have a few ideas about a (short) list of topics for discussion.

I am curious about how many CDRs have been implemented in how many lisps over the last seven years. This information may not be easily available, but anything that anyone knows will be interesting.

- nick

"Pascal J. Bourguignon" pjb@informatimago.com wrote:

Nick Levine ndl@ravenbrook.com writes:

...

...

From: Marco Antoniotti marcoxa@cs.nyu.edu Date: Mon, 27 May 2013 23:17:46 +0200

Dear all,

so, is there any interest in making a CDR BoF at ECLM or ELS? I have a few ideas about a (short) list of topics for discussion.

I am curious about how many CDRs have been implemented in how many lisps over the last seven years. This information may not be easily available, but anything that anyone knows will be interesting.

There's no CDR about it, but there's an informal convention that when a CDR is implemented, a keyword :CDRn is pushed onto *features*. We should probably write a CDR about it.

Yes, that's exactly what I proposed at the meeting. There was also a thread on this issue on the ECL list. See:

http://www.mail-archive.com/ecls-list@lists.sourceforge.net/msg01225.html

But actually, AFAIK, all the CDR defined so far can be implemented as libraries.

Not mine on file-local variables at least. It requires a vendor extension. Not that you cannot work around it though: my library called ASDF-FLV does exactly that.