As it stands now, it appears that Swank does not signal its own existance via *features*.
Is there another, more idiomatic way to check for RUNNING-UNDER-SWANK-iness, or did i actually spot something missing?
regards, Samium Gromoff
+ Samium Gromoff _deepfire@feelingofgreen.ru:
| As it stands now, it appears that Swank does not signal its own existance via *features*. | | Is there another, more idiomatic way to check for RUNNING-UNDER-SWANK-iness, | or did i actually spot something missing?
Um, what's wrong with (find-package :swank) ?
If you need to, you can always roll your own (if (find-package :swank) (pushnew :swank *features*)) so that you can use #+swank or #-swank if that is what you need to do. But if so, it makes me wonder why you want this.
- Harald
At Mon, 05 Mar 2007 22:00:28 +0100 (CET), Harald Hanche-Olsen wrote:
- Samium Gromoff _deepfire@feelingofgreen.ru:
| As it stands now, it appears that Swank does not signal its own existance via *features*. | | Is there another, more idiomatic way to check for RUNNING-UNDER-SWANK-iness, | or did i actually spot something missing?
Um, what's wrong with (find-package :swank) ?
If you need to, you can always roll your own (if (find-package :swank) (pushnew :swank *features*)) so that you can use #+swank or #-swank if that is what you need to do. But if so, it makes me wonder why you want this.
Yes, i want #-/#+, and chiefly, just for the uniformness's sake.
(The actual use case involves trapping or not trapping the swank user interrupt condition, depending on whether we are running under swank.)
I'm under impression that *features* is the perfect place to publish such information.
- Harald
On Tue, 06 Mar 2007 02:23:52 +0300, Samium Gromoff wrote:
At Mon, 05 Mar 2007 22:00:28 +0100 (CET), Harald Hanche-Olsen wrote:
- Samium Gromoff _deepfire@feelingofgreen.ru:
| As it stands now, it appears that Swank does not signal its own existance via *features*. | | Is there another, more idiomatic way to check for RUNNING-UNDER-SWANK-iness, | or did i actually spot something missing?
Um, what's wrong with (find-package :swank) ?
If you need to, you can always roll your own (if (find-package :swank) (pushnew :swank *features*)) so that you can use #+swank or #-swank if that is what you need to do. But if so, it makes me wonder why you want this.
Yes, i want #-/#+, and chiefly, just for the uniformness's sake.
(The actual use case involves trapping or not trapping the swank user interrupt condition, depending on whether we are running under swank.)
I'm under impression that *features* is the perfect place to publish such information.
Hmm, but isn't #-/#+ used only during _read_ time? This only tells you whether swank was present while you read code. So iff you compile a file while running under swank and then later you reload it outside of swank you might be in deep trouble ...
Cheers, Ralf Mattes
- Harald
At Tue, 06 Mar 2007 00:39:01 +0100, Ralf Mattes wrote:
On Tue, 06 Mar 2007 02:23:52 +0300, Samium Gromoff wrote:
Yes, i want #-/#+, and chiefly, just for the uniformness's sake.
(The actual use case involves trapping or not trapping the swank user interrupt condition, depending on whether we are running under swank.)
I'm under impression that *features* is the perfect place to publish such information.
Hmm, but isn't #-/#+ used only during _read_ time? This only tells you whether swank was present while you read code. So iff you compile a file while running under swank and then later you reload it outside of swank you might be in deep trouble ...
Thanks for the brain readjustment, i've totally missed this aspect...
I retract my request for this feature.
Cheers, Ralf Mattes
- Harald
-
Harald Hanche-Olsen -
Ralf Mattes -
Samium Gromoff