On 07/08/07, Nikodemus Siivola nikodemus@random-state.net wrote:
The only things I'm unhappy about are grabbing package names like MACH. [...] (a) Use names like OSIX, OSMACH, OSWIN -- compromise between putting them in the OSICAT "namespace" and using something terse.
Those names do sound like a good compromise. (And I think Corman already uses WIN.) What do you think Stelian? Also, OSIMACH and OSIWIN? Or is that one character too many?
Other stuff (aka directions to move in): while I'm OK with having OSICAT-POSIX / OSIX on Windows, in the long term the Windows side should probably not build on it.
Sure.
So that everything doesn't become a huge #+foo mess, there should be src/windows.lisp, which implements the nonportable contents of src/osicat.lisp for Windows, etc.
Agreed. That approach worked really well for CFFI.