Kenny Tilton writes:
Thomas F. Burdick wrote:
I'm pretty much just waiting on an answer from the OpenMCL developers telling me where we're supposed to be getting MOP functions from. For kicks, I checked Classic MCL this weekend, and it partially works. One of the unbound-cells tests failed, and I didn't feel very inspired to debug it.
My bad. I hate testing. I did not even run the tests under AllegroCL. I just fired up Cello and The Fabulous Spinning Shape Demo. To be honest, I would not be surprised if some tests need revision. And if I go ahead and remove autodetection of cycles, this will break any test designed to confirm that cycles are autodetected -- just do not remember if I have one.
Actually, I think it means that there is something broken on MCL, because the tests run to completion on SBCL.
Cells has always been tested under CLisp, and Cells-Gtk Classic was developed on CLisp. It should work there as well, if anyone cares to test. CLisp now has better (great, they say) MOP support, so things should only be getting easier.
Oh yeah. So the list is: Allegro, SBCL, LispWorks, CMUCL, CLISP, OpenMCL. Probably works: Corman Partially works: MCL
One issue with CLisp was some crazy defstruct/include/conc-name behavior. Gratuitous noncompliance crap. Hsssss! :) That is why all the Cell defstructs have different conc-names.
I had wondered about that. It did make the SBCL port more "exciting" because there were a couple cases of using a subclass' accessor on a parent class, which SBCL is picky about. I had meant to malign the conc-name decision, but I guess I forgot :-)