slime-devel

slime-devel@common-lisp.net

4231 discussions

[slime-devel] when did definterface / defimplementation start making defuns instead of defmethods and why
by Gary King 06 Oct '06

06 Oct '06

Maybe that's too long a subject but it does say it all. When did definterface / defimplementation start making defuns instead of defmethods and why? thanks, -- Gary Warren King, metabang.com Cell: (413) 885 9127 Fax: (206) 338-4052 gwkkwg on Skype * garethsan on AIM

2 1

[slime-devel] Lisp connection closed unexpectedly: exited abnormally with code 256 (with SBCL 0.9.8, elephant)
by Red Daly 06 Oct '06

06 Oct '06

I receive the following error when working a piece of software called Elephant. The following two lines cause my Lisp connection to exit abnormally: (asdf:operate 'asdf:load-op :elephant) (let ((store-spec '(:BDB "store"))) (elephant:open-store store-spec)) The only visible error is a status message in emacs: Lisp connection closed unexpectedly: exited abnormally with code 256 I am running SBCL 0.9.8 on ubuntu dapper 2.6.15-27-386. I do not know what version of slime I have, but I downloaded it within the past few weeks from the slime site. I read about a similar problem that was resolved by using an inferor-lisp-program of "nohup sbcl", but that causes other problems for me (I can elaborate if this seems like the right idea). I am simultaneously involved in a discussion on the elephant-devel mailing list about this same issue. See that thread here: http://common-lisp.net/pipermail/elephant-devel/2006-October/000549.html thanks for any help, red daly

3 2

[slime-devel] Connection to Emacs lost under LispWorks 5.0
by Chris Dean 05 Oct '06

05 Oct '06

When I evaluate (code-char 8217) in the SLIME repl, the Emacs connection to the Lisp process is lost. It looks like lisp is still running when I look at my ps output. This is under Linux using LispWorks 5.0 and the latest CVS slime. The *inferior-lisp* buffer has the message ;; swank:close-connection: #\U+2019 is not of type BASE-CHAR. I assume this is some sort of encoding problem, but I'm not sure where. Any ideas as to how to fix this? Cheers, Chris Dean

1 1

Re: [slime-devel] Re: COPYRIGHT change - slime contributors please read this
by bojohan+lisp＠dd.chalmers.se 05 Oct '06

05 Oct '06

Luca Capello <luca(a)pca.it> writes: >> swank-ecl.lisp (juan jose garcia is ok with putting this file into >> the public domain) > > As from [1], I think we need Johan Bockgård's agreement as well. OK. -- Johan Bockgård

1 0

Re: [slime-devel] Re: COPYRIGHT change - slime contributors please read this
by Espen Wiborg 05 Oct '06

05 Oct '06

Luca Capello <luca(a)pca.it> writes: >> PROBLEMS > > Created by Luke, modified by Helmut, Espen Wiborg and Christophe > Rhodes. My contributions to this file are placed in the public domain. -- Espen Wiborg <ewiborg(a)common-lisp.net> "Dreamt" is the only English word that ends in the letters "mt."

1 0

Re: [slime-devel] Re: COPYRIGHT change - slime contributors please read this
by Douglas Crosher 04 Oct '06

04 Oct '06

Luca Capello wrote: > Hello! > > I'm cc:ing all the interested people (please read below), sorry if > someone of them daily reads SLIME-devel. Please reply to the > SLIME-devel mailing list only (I set R-T and M-F-T accordingly). > > Peter, I cc:ing you FYI, as you're the Debian SLIME maintainer. > > On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 01:33:07 +0200, Marco Baringer wrote: >> what i really meant to say here was: what should I do for those files >> which have no copyright notice in them? >> >> The files in question are: >> >> swank-ecl.lisp (juan jose garcia is ok with putting this file into >> the public domain) > > As from [1], I think we need Johan Bockgård's agreement as well. > Moreover, the file was modified by Helmut Heller and Douglas Crosher. > I think we also need to add the copyright statement (or at least a > note about its authors). All of my contributions to SLIME are placed in the Public Domain. Regards Douglas Crosher

1 0

Re: [slime-devel] Re: COPYRIGHT change - slime contributors please read this
by Luca Capello 04 Oct '06

04 Oct '06

Hello again! On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 00:48:04 +0200, Luca Capello wrote: > On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 01:33:07 +0200, Marco Baringer wrote: >> what i really meant to say here was: what should I do for those files >> which have no copyright notice in them? >> >> The files in question are: I forgot the ChangeLog file: as Peter Van Eynde stated on the debian/copyright file, this is a generated file and probably it can be considered a derivative of the others. FWIW, its first author was Luke Gorrie :-) Thx, bye, Gismo / Luca

1 0

[slime-devel] COPYRIGHT change - slime contributors please read this
by Marco Baringer 04 Oct '06

04 Oct '06

hi, I have changed the license statement in SLIME's README. it used to be: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ SLIME is free software. The source files are licensed separately for maximum compatibility with their host environment, for example slime.el is GPL and swank-cmucl.lisp is public domain. See the source files for more details. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ It is now this: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ SLIME is free software. All files, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are public domain. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ So if you've contributed code to SLIME and haven't supplied a copyright statement your code is now public domain. If you have an issue with this please bring it up asap. For what it's worth the only files which were missing a copyright statement were swank-ecl.lisp, doc/Makefile, HACKING, NEWS, PROBLEMS and README. juan jose garcia (the original author of swank-ecl.lisp) is ok with the change so I don't think anyone should be surprised be this change. -- -Marco Ring the bells that still can ring. Forget your perfect offering. There is a crack in everything. That's how the light gets in. -Leonard Cohen

4 3

[slime-devel] (quit) in REPL -> error in *inferior-lisp* on sbcl
by Yaroslav Kavenchuk 04 Oct '06

04 Oct '06

sbcl 0.9.17, win32 slime from CVS head When I type (quit) in REPL, in *inferior-lisp*: ... ;; Swank started at port: 3878. ;; swank:close-connection: NIL debugger invoked on a UNBOUND-VARIABLE: The variable SWANK::*REAL-STANDARD-OUTPUT* is unbound. Type HELP for debugger help, or (SB-EXT:QUIT) to exit from SBCL. restarts (invokable by number or by possibly-abbreviated name): 0: [ABORT] Exit debugger, returning to top level. (SWANK::REVERT-GLOBAL-IO-REDIRECTION) 0] Thanks! -- WBR, Yaroslav Kavenchuk.

2 4

RE: [slime-devel] COPYRIGHT change - slime contributors please read this
by Bradford W Miller 04 Oct '06

04 Oct '06

Well, I am not an expert in global law, however, you might just add a copyright notice to the effect that the entries in these files are (c) their individual authors. Because they contributed them explicitly to SLIME, there is at least an implicit license of use that follows the overall license of SLIME (e.g., FSF, or whatever), but even if SLIME were public domain, you could not assume that such a contribution would also be public domain, only that there is an implicit license to use in conjunction with the use of SLIME. Subject to debate, that might be worded: ;; Entries in this file are Copyright (C) their individual authors, ;; attributed or otherwise. An implicit license to copy and use these ;; contributions in conjunction with SLIME is presumed under the terms of ;; the GPL, however, additional rights are reserved to the respective ;; authors. Along with any additional needed legalese (express disclaimers of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose; inclusion of the GPL since I don't think it can simply be referenced as "GPL", which by the way, appears to be missing from the SLIME distro, and FSF already gives a sample license statement for how to talk about it.) I think this would preserve the spirit of having made a contribution to SLIME (that is, an author would certainly have the expectation the work would be shared and used as SLIME is), and expressly acknowledges the implicit copyright on such works, without the suspect action of a declaration by a third party that the work is in the public domain (which if relied upon on the basis that the declaration was part of the distro, could cause a lot of legal problems down the road should one of the original authors or their heirs eventually step forward and make a claim). B/R Bradford W. Miller -----Original Message----- From: mb(a)bese.it [mailto:mb@bese.it] Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2006 7:30 PM To: Bradford W Miller Cc: slime-devel(a)common-lisp.net Subject: Re: [slime-devel] COPYRIGHT change - slime contributors please read this Marco Baringer <mb(a)bese.it> writes: > what should i do for README and HACKING where there is no single > author? what i really meant to say here was: what should I do for those files which have no copyright notice in them? The files in question are: swank-ecl.lisp (juan jose garcia is ok with putting this file into the public domain) doc/Makefile HACKING NEWS PROBLEMS README -- -Marco Ring the bells that still can ring. Forget your perfect offering. There is a crack in everything. That's how the light gets in. -Leonard Cohen

1 0

Jump to page:

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

slime-devel