* Brian Mastenbrook [2005-09-16 13:55+0200] writes:
On Sep 16, 2005, at 6:14 AM, Helmut Eller wrote:
Sadly, the goals shifted a bit since then.
I don't think very many people would agree that this is "sadly". If this is the way you feel, however, I'm sure that there are enough people who prefer using SLIME on other Common Lisps to sustain a fork Sadly, the goals shifted a bit since then. of the project.
Sure. That's why Taylor Campbell should at least consider making a fork.
I'm not that excited about supporting every Frankenstein Lisp on the planet, just because we can. And frankly, who wants to use a Lisp which doesn't even have docstrings?
Taylor's goal in this project was to make a good Emacs IDE for Scheme48, not to make SLIME support "every Frankenstein Lisp". SLIME was just the tool he chose to make this happen.
Scheme48 is a Frankenstein Lisp by my definition. If SLIME doesn't need to support Scheme48, why does he even bother us/me then?
If you want to add your code to our CVS repo, it should be clear that Scheme is only a second class citizen here, and that we have limited motivation to make/keep the protocol working with the Scheme server.
Why does that need to be? Why can't Taylor just maintain the Scheme48 support to the best level possible, just as is done with the other backends?
Because he wrote his own server (swank) not only the implementation specific part (swank-backend). His server also uses a rather different approach to threading than we do.
On the technical side, Scheme has continuations but SLIME assumes that the Lisp is stack oriented. I haven't thought too much about it, but there will likely be problems if somebody calls a continuation multiple times. Also, interrupting doesn't seem to work with your backend, or not in the way I expected it.
I'm not sure what those problems would be. Can you clarify?
Try
(define k (call-with-current-continuation (lambda (c) c))) (k 1)
and type C-x C-e at the end of each line.