On 4/12/06, Nikodemus Siivola nikodemus@random-state.net wrote:
Your man behind the curtain:
"SBCL developers aren't nice, and #lisp isn't too helpfull."
While I can agree with your sentiments I don't see the relevance here: there is a demonstrated need for tarballs (people behind company firewalls can't always get at CVS), and unless you want to claim 1.2.1 as being up to date new ones are needed. Whether they are releases or automagic CVS snapshots is a different, but equally unrelated to SBCL and #lisp, issue.
Actually, he was also claiming that you need bleeding-edge SLIME for the latest SBCL, which hasn't been the case for a while.
Really, just some release from within the last 10 months would solve the problem. Back when SLIME and SBCL were both in rapid motion, you needed a careful match of the two. However, I last updated one of my SLIMEs when I switched to the 0.9.x series of SBCL some 9 or 10 months ago, and that SLIME works fine with SBCL >= 0.9.0, recent CMUCL's, and Allegro 7 and 8.
The moral of this is that SLIME has been stable in terms of what it demands from a Lisp for quite a long time. As far as I'm concerned it was feature-complete when it grew proper Unicode support. In case anyone is wondering why I haven't contributed to SLIME in the last year or so, it's because nothing major has been broken, and I haven't had any itches I wanted Emacs to scratch. When it hasn't done everything I needed it to, I've submitted patches to that effect -- which explains what I'm doing here, expressing support for what seems self-evidently a good thing: Mario Mommer sees a need for some regular releases or snapshots, and is willing to do the work to make it happen. One might wonder what this "G P" fellow is doing here, aside from trolling about SBCL, filling up everyone's mailboxes, and being a general pain in the ass.