Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2005 01:33:44 +0200 (MEST) From: Andras Simon andras@renyi.hu
On Fri, 16 Sep 2005, Brian Mastenbrook wrote:
On Sep 16, 2005, at 6:14 AM, Helmut Eller wrote:
[...]
Compatibility with other Common Lisps is not a goal.
Sadly, the goals shifted a bit since then.
I don't think very many people would agree that this is "sadly". If
That's right and I'm not one of them (I've used slime with five CL implementations so far). But then it's mainly Helmut (and Luke, and a select few, of course) who has had to worry about the idiosyncracies of the various implementations.
I don't think that they would have to worry about the Scheme48 Swank implementation. Once SLIME48 is fairly stable with respect to existing SLIME features, I think I could probably maintain its continual development in the context of SLIME's pretty easily.
OTOH it'd be great if schemers created a fork of SLIME.
Can you explain why you think this would be better than (very non-invasively) adding Scheme support to the regular SLIME?
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.
The problem with Scheme is that there's so many of it. At least the number of CL implementations is bounded.
So many of it? SLIME48 is just Scheme48, nothing else. I have considered an MIT Scheme Swank implementation, too, which would be somewhat closer to CL, actually, at least in threading; however, this is just two Schemes, not the whole Scheme world. (I don't think there are many other Schemes that could support or be supported by Swank anyway in the same way that Scheme48 & MIT Scheme can, by the way.)