Note to all: the abcl.lisp implementation inadvertenly contains a reference to LCONS*.
https://github.com/slime/slime/blob/master/swank/abcl.lisp#L1086
Recompiling the form via SLIME once things have been loaded works fine.
Any chance we can get a standard mechanism to recompile stuff in the implementation to declare that a given thunk should be recompiled once SWANK has finished loading?
Back in 2017 or so, @aruttenburg had a patch to some of move the some of the utlities to load before the implementation-specific, but @stastats objected on the grounds that we want the initial load to be as fast and error free as possible.
I really don’t want to redefine LCONS* in the ABCL specific code, but that will work for me if no one has a better idea.
regards, Mark
-- "No, this is not a disentanglement, but a progressive /knotting-into/."
On Sun, Nov 1, 2020 at 6:22 PM Mark Evenson evenson.not.org@gmail.com wrote:
Note to all: the abcl.lisp implementation inadvertenly contains a reference to LCONS*.
https://github.com/slime/slime/blob/master/swank/abcl.lisp#L1086
Recompiling the form via SLIME once things have been loaded works fine.
Any chance we can get a standard mechanism to recompile stuff in the implementation to declare that a given thunk should be recompiled once SWANK has finished loading?
Back in 2017 or so, @aruttenburg had a patch to some of move the some of the utlities to load before the implementation-specific, but @stastats objected on the grounds that we want the initial load to be as fast and error free as possible.
I don't remember saying that or follow the logic here.
On Nov 1, 2020, at 17:21, Stas Boukarev stassats@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Nov 1, 2020 at 6:22 PM Mark Evenson evenson.not.org@gmail.com wrote:
Note to all: the abcl.lisp implementation inadvertenly contains a reference to LCONS*.
[…]
Back in 2017 or so, @aruttenburg had a patch to some of move the some of the utlities to load before the implementation-specific, but @stastats objected on the grounds that we want the initial load to be as fast and error free as possible.
I don't remember saying that or follow the logic here.
My apologies for incorrectly paraphrasing your position.
Let me try to restate: the ABCL implementation would like to use some of the machinery from swank.lisp, such as the [lazy list macroization][1]. The changes we requested were admittedly jumbled up in whole bunch of other issues, which we eventually resolved by judicious trimming [2][3]. How could we ensure that SWANK:LCONS* is present when we load the abcl implementation specific code?
[1]: https://github.com/slime/slime/blob/master/swank.lisp#L3065 [2]: https://github.com/slime/slime/pull/502/commits/1c4681da458470987393ed5a2a4a... [3]: https://github.com/slime/slime/pull/502/commits/1911dcfbe1dbf3445bb41c048396...
-- "No, this is not a disentanglement, but a progressive /knotting-into/."
I don't see any problem with moving things to whenever they're needed.
On Sun, Nov 1, 2020 at 7:36 PM Mark Evenson evenson.not.org@gmail.com wrote:
On Nov 1, 2020, at 17:21, Stas Boukarev stassats@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Nov 1, 2020 at 6:22 PM Mark Evenson evenson.not.org@gmail.com wrote:
Note to all: the abcl.lisp implementation inadvertenly contains a reference to LCONS*.
[…]
Back in 2017 or so, @aruttenburg had a patch to some of move the some of the utlities to load before the implementation-specific, but @stastats objected on the grounds that we want the initial load to be as fast and error free as possible.
I don't remember saying that or follow the logic here.
My apologies for incorrectly paraphrasing your position.
Let me try to restate: the ABCL implementation would like to use some of the machinery from swank.lisp, such as the [lazy list macroization][1]. The changes we requested were admittedly jumbled up in whole bunch of other issues, which we eventually resolved by judicious trimming [2][3]. How could we ensure that SWANK:LCONS* is present when we load the abcl implementation specific code?
-- "No, this is not a disentanglement, but a progressive /knotting-into/."
On Nov 1, 2020, at 17:39, Stas Boukarev stassats@gmail.com wrote:
I don't see any problem with moving things to whenever they're needed.
Alright, I’ll try to summon the cycles to make a decent merge request.
Thanks for the feedback.
-- "No, this is not a disentanglement, but a progressive /knotting-into/."
-
Mark Evenson -
Stas Boukarev