Apart from that, I think that ALBERT could be yet another alternative source. I was never able to quite follow through ALBERT's code, and I had problems with it, but then again I didn't put too much time into it.
Cheers -- Marco
On Oct 25, 2005, at 3:16 PM, Nikodemus Siivola wrote:
On Tue, 25 Oct 2005, GP lisper wrote:
The safe way would be a "Chinese Wall". Have someone that has looked at the code describe it (at high level, certainly not line-by-line) to someone that has never seen the code.
As far as I can tell this is quite unecessary. As long as you can make a case that the reimplementation is an independent effort, not derivative.
I would personally feel quite comfortable reimplementing xref.lisp (not that I have the time to do it) despite having read it. I would even feel comfortable to _refer_ to it while writing another implementation: "I wonder how it dealt with LET?". If the original author had a problem with that I they could sue me.
IANAL, but I don't let that bother me.
Cheers,
-- Nikodemus Schemer: "Buddha is small, clean, and serious." Lispnik: "Buddha is big, has hairy armpits, and laughs." _______________________________________________ slime-devel site list slime-devel@common-lisp.net http://common-lisp.net/mailman/listinfo/slime-devel
-- Marco Antoniotti http://bioinformatics.nyu.edu/~marcoxa NYU Courant Bioinformatics Group tel. +1 - 212 - 998 3488 715 Broadway 10th FL fax. +1 - 212 - 998 3484 New York, NY, 10003, U.S.A.