Hi.
Sorry if this these are old issues already. I just recently became a subscriber to this list.
I've been using SLIME a few years on Linux, and it was fine, and actually set up by others.
Recently, I tried setting it up on Windows by myself. Not so smooth.
I followed the basic documentation, which was basically
(require 'slime) (slime-setup)
But that did not start a REPL, but just the *inferior-lisp* buffer. After a while, I looked around, and I found some "chatter" about having to do
(require 'slime-fancy) (slime-setup).
That almost worked in XEmacs, and did work in GNU Emacs. Is that really what the average user is supposed to do? The main doc on installation pointed to from here:
http://common-lisp.net/project/slime/
which doc is here:
http://common-lisp.net/project/slime/doc/html/Installation.html#Installation
says this is what you should do:
(require 'slime) (slime-setup)
I.e., the first thing I tried. So, is the basic doc wrong? What's the deal?
Also, regarding XEmacs, it did not work off the bat when I required slime-fancy, but did work after I wrapped (unless (featurep 'xemacs) ...) around (require 'slime-autodoc) in a few slime*.el files.
Can we get very simple changes such as this, which happen to be needed to make SLIME work with XEmacs, into the main line?
Thanks,
Mark
"Mark H. David" mhd@yv.org writes:
Hi.
Sorry if this these are old issues already. I just recently became a subscriber to this list.
I've been using SLIME a few years on Linux, and it was fine, and actually set up by others.
Recently, I tried setting it up on Windows by myself. Not so smooth.
I followed the basic documentation, which was basically
(require 'slime) (slime-setup)
But that did not start a REPL, but just the *inferior-lisp* buffer. After a while, I looked around, and I found some "chatter" about having to do
(require 'slime-fancy) (slime-setup).
That almost worked in XEmacs, and did work in GNU Emacs. Is that really what the average user is supposed to do?
No, you it should've been (slime-setup '(slime-fancy))
The main doc on installation pointed to from here:
http://common-lisp.net/project/slime/
which doc is here:
http://common-lisp.net/project/slime/doc/html/Installation.html#Installation
says this is what you should do:
(require 'slime) (slime-setup)I.e., the first thing I tried. So, is the basic doc wrong? What's the deal?
The deal is that it's not loaded by default. Don't ask me why.
Oh, sorry, should have written something different. See below...
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [slime-devel] slime repl AND slime-fancy vs. XEmacs From: Stas Boukarev stassats@gmail.com To: Mark H. David mhd@yv.org Cc: slime-devel@common-lisp.net Date: Sat Nov 14 2009 18:38:14 GMT-0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
"Mark H. David" mhd@yv.org writes:
Hi.
Sorry if this these are old issues already. I just recently became a subscriber to this list.
I've been using SLIME a few years on Linux, and it was fine, and actually set up by others.
Recently, I tried setting it up on Windows by myself. Not so smooth.
I followed the basic documentation, which was basically
(require 'slime) (slime-setup)
But that did not start a REPL, but just the *inferior-lisp* buffer. After a while, I looked around, and I found some "chatter" about having to do
(require 'slime-fancy) (slime-setup).
That almost worked in XEmacs, and did work in GNU Emacs. Is that really what the average user is supposed to do?
No, you it should've been (slime-setup '(slime-fancy))
Right, sorry about that, I meant
(require 'slime) (slime-setup '(slime-fancy))
The main doc on installation pointed to from here:
http://common-lisp.net/project/slime/
which doc is here:
http://common-lisp.net/project/slime/doc/html/Installation.html#Installation
says this is what you should do:
(require 'slime) (slime-setup)I.e., the first thing I tried. So, is the basic doc wrong? What's the deal?
The deal is that it's not loaded by default. Don't ask me why.
OK, but what's the deal with the documentation? Also, why would anyone just do (slime-setup) if it doesn't even cause M-x slime to start a REPL? Is it "slime" if you're just using the *inferior-lisp*??
Attila Lendvai attila.lendvai@gmail.com writes:
I.e., the first thing I tried. So, is the basic doc wrong? What's the deal?
The deal is that it's not loaded by default. Don't ask me why.
isn't it fun reading the mails of the lost users, led astray by the wrong defaults? :)
</sarcasm>
I'm all for it, but I'm not the one who you need to persuade.
Things are broken: either the doc is wrong or the defaults are wrong. Is there anyone in charge who's not in favor of fixing that?
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [slime-devel] slime repl AND slime-fancy vs. XEmacs From: Stas Boukarev stassats@gmail.com To: Attila Lendvai attila.lendvai@gmail.com Cc: "Mark H. David" mhd@yv.org, slime-devel@common-lisp.net Date: Sun Nov 15 2009 18:17:02 GMT-0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
Attila Lendvai attila.lendvai@gmail.com writes:
I.e., the first thing I tried. So, is the basic doc wrong? What's the deal?
The deal is that it's not loaded by default. Don't ask me why.
isn't it fun reading the mails of the lost users, led astray by the wrong defaults? :)
</sarcasm>
I'm all for it, but I'm not the one who you need to persuade.
* Mark H. David [2009-11-16 06:43+0100] writes:
Things are broken: either the doc is wrong or the defaults are wrong. Is there anyone in charge who's not in favor of fixing that?
I'm in charge and I make the defaults.
There is Slime and there are contribs. I care about Slime. Contribs are made and maintained my, well, contributors. I don't want the repl to be part of Slime because Slime is much easier to maintain without repl.
Slime is not a commercial product with customers where developers have to do whatever paying users want. Neither am I trying to sell Slime. If you don't like it the way it is use something else.
Helmut
By "in charge", I include both making defaults and deciding what the doc says. The approach described -- having REPL not be the default mode of operation -- is not in and of itself broken. It's just that it's not in synch with the doc. What about the doc? It says
here:
http://common-lisp.net/project/slime/doc/html/Inferior_002dlisp.html#Inferio...
The buffer |*inferior-lisp*| contains the Lisp process's own top-level. This direct access to Lisp is useful for troubleshooting, and some degree of SLIME integration is available using the |inferior-slime-mode|. However, in normal use we recommend using the fully-integrated SLIME REPL and ignoring the |*inferior-lisp*| buffer.
and
here:
http://common-lisp.net/project/slime/doc/html/Installation.html#Installation
With a Lisp implementation that can be started from the command-line, installation just requires a few lines in your .emacs:
(setq inferior-lisp-program "/opt/sbcl/bin/sbcl") ; your Lisp system (add-to-list 'load-path "~/hacking/lisp/slime/") ; your SLIME directory (require 'slime) (slime-setup)
So, can the doc be fixed now? -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [slime-devel] slime repl AND slime-fancy vs. XEmacs From: Helmut Eller heller@common-lisp.net To: slime-devel@common-lisp.net Date: Mon Nov 16 2009 01:49:42 GMT-0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
- Mark H. David [2009-11-16 06:43+0100] writes:
Things are broken: either the doc is wrong or the defaults are wrong. Is there anyone in charge who's not in favor of fixing that?
I'm in charge and I make the defaults.
There is Slime and there are contribs. I care about Slime. Contribs are made and maintained my, well, contributors. I don't want the repl to be part of Slime because Slime is much easier to maintain without repl.
Slime is not a commercial product with customers where developers have to do whatever paying users want. Neither am I trying to sell Slime. If you don't like it the way it is use something else.
Helmut
slime-devel site list slime-devel@common-lisp.net http://common-lisp.net/mailman/listinfo/slime-devel
* "Mark H. David" 4B015AF9.8010705@yv.org : Wrote on Mon, 16 Nov 2009 09:00:25 -0500:
| By "in charge", I include both making defaults and deciding what the | doc says. The approach described -- having REPL not be the default | mode of operation -- is not in and of itself broken. It's just that | it's not in synch with the doc. What about the doc? It says
The problem is that the doc contains the correct information, though it maybe confusing and not apparent unless you put things together. (I'm looking at the doc/slime.texi for this mail, not the website:)
| | here: | | http://common-lisp.net/project/slime/doc/html/Inferior_002dlisp.html#Inferio... | | The buffer *inferior-lisp* contains the Lisp process's own | top-level. This direct access to Lisp is useful for troubleshooting, | and some degree of SLIME integration is available using the | inferior-slime-mode. However, in normal use we recommend using the | fully-integrated SLIME REPL and ignoring the *inferior-lisp* buffer.
`REPL' is a hyperlink that points to the REPL subnode (under `Contributed Packages'. REP node indicates how the REPL is to be invoked, it says:
To load the REPL call `(slime-setup '(slime-repl))' in your `.emacs'.
Also The `Loading Contribs' subnode `Contributed Packages' shows how packages are loaded.
| and here: | | http://common-lisp.net/project/slime/doc/html/Installation.html#Installation | | With a Lisp implementation that can be started from the command-line, | installation just requires a few lines in your .emacs: | | (setq inferior-lisp-program "/opt/sbcl/bin/sbcl") ; your Lisp system | (add-to-list 'load-path "~/hacking/lisp/slime/") ; your SLIME directory | (require 'slime) | (slime-setup)
Immediately after that, it says
This is the minimal configuration with the fewest frills. If the basic setup is working, you can try additional modules (*note Loading Contribs::).
Again with a link to the `Loading Contribs' Node.
So mentioning (slime-setup '(slime-repl)) here would not be appropriate at all. Besides IMHO the REPL has long-standing unfixed bugs I'm not sure it should be recommended outright.
| So, can the doc be fixed now?
How would you like it to be fixed? What do you think would be least confusing or appropriate? Would you be happy with this?
I never really heard of anyone intentionally running SLIME without running the REPL. I thought the REPL was the essence of using SLIME. At least, I think it's the most common way people run SLIME. If I'm at all close to right, I would still like to see it there on that main installation doc page. Couldn't it shown as an example along with explaining that it's a "contrib", but it's the most commonly used one, and then sending them off to the contrib doc for extra information? That's what I'd like to see.
Anyhow, I think the changes as you have them are an improvement, as step in the right direction.
Thanks,
Mark
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [slime-devel] slime repl AND slime-fancy vs. XEmacs From: Madhu enometh@meer.net To: slime-devel@common-lisp.net Date: Mon Nov 16 2009 23:07:20 GMT-0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
- "Mark H. David" 4B015AF9.8010705@yv.org :
Wrote on Mon, 16 Nov 2009 09:00:25 -0500:
| By "in charge", I include both making defaults and deciding what the | doc says. The approach described -- having REPL not be the default | mode of operation -- is not in and of itself broken. It's just that | it's not in synch with the doc. What about the doc? It says
The problem is that the doc contains the correct information, though it maybe confusing and not apparent unless you put things together. (I'm looking at the doc/slime.texi for this mail, not the website:)
| | here: | | http://common-lisp.net/project/slime/doc/html/Inferior_002dlisp.html#Inferio... | | The buffer *inferior-lisp* contains the Lisp process's own | top-level. This direct access to Lisp is useful for troubleshooting, | and some degree of SLIME integration is available using the | inferior-slime-mode. However, in normal use we recommend using the | fully-integrated SLIME REPL and ignoring the *inferior-lisp* buffer.
`REPL' is a hyperlink that points to the REPL subnode (under `Contributed Packages'. REP node indicates how the REPL is to be invoked, it says:
To load the REPL call `(slime-setup '(slime-repl))' in your `.emacs'.
Also The `Loading Contribs' subnode `Contributed Packages' shows how packages are loaded.
| and here: | | http://common-lisp.net/project/slime/doc/html/Installation.html#Installation | | With a Lisp implementation that can be started from the command-line, | installation just requires a few lines in your .emacs: | | (setq inferior-lisp-program "/opt/sbcl/bin/sbcl") ; your Lisp system | (add-to-list 'load-path "~/hacking/lisp/slime/") ; your SLIME directory | (require 'slime) | (slime-setup)
Immediately after that, it says
This is the minimal configuration with the fewest frills. If the basic setup is working, you can try additional modules (*note Loading Contribs::).
Again with a link to the `Loading Contribs' Node.
So mentioning (slime-setup '(slime-repl)) here would not be appropriate at all. Besides IMHO the REPL has long-standing unfixed bugs I'm not sure it should be recommended outright.
| So, can the doc be fixed now?
How would you like it to be fixed? What do you think would be least confusing or appropriate? Would you be happy with this?
slime-devel site list slime-devel@common-lisp.net http://common-lisp.net/mailman/listinfo/slime-devel
"Mark H. David" mhd@yv.org writes:
I never really heard of anyone intentionally running SLIME without running the REPL. I thought the REPL was the essence of using SLIME. At least, I think it's the most common way people run SLIME.
Even if you do not use the Slime REPL, you'd still have your implementation's REPL at the *inferior-lisp-buffer*. I guess there are people who are accustomed to their implementation's powerful repl (e.g. Allegro users) and really only want to use that.
If I'm at all close to right, I would still like to see it there on that main installation doc page. Couldn't it shown as an example along with explaining that it's a "contrib", but it's the most commonly used one, and then sending them off to the contrib doc for extra information? That's what I'd like to see.
It should say that people typically want to enable the slime-fancy meta contrib because the default configuation is very minimalistic. (I don't know what "main installation doc page" refers to. It's the README file? If not, the README file should be changed, too.)
I'll happily apply a patch from you along Madhu's patch. It's the way to improve the situation.
-T.
See below...
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [slime-devel] slime repl AND slime-fancy vs. XEmacs From: Tobias C. Rittweiler tcr@freebits.de To: slime-devel@common-lisp.net Date: Tue Nov 17 2009 04:00:31 GMT-0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
"Mark H. David" mhd@yv.org writes: ...
If I'm at all close to right, I would still like to see it there on that main installation doc page. Couldn't it shown as an example along with explaining that it's a "contrib", but it's the most commonly used one, and then sending them off to the contrib doc for extra information? That's what I'd like to see.
It should say that people typically want to enable the slime-fancy meta contrib because the default configuation is very minimalistic.
That sounds good.
(I don't know what "main installation doc page" refers to. It's the README file? If not, the README file should be changed, too.)
It's the doc reachable from here:
http://common-lisp.net/project/slime/
That's an HTML link --
http://common-lisp.net/project/slime/doc/html/
and a PDF link --
http://common-lisp.net/project/slime/doc/slime.pdf
Of course, the README and doc/slime.texi must be changed, too.
I'll happily apply a patch from you along Madhu's patch. It's the way to improve the situation.
-T.
slime-devel site list slime-devel@common-lisp.net http://common-lisp.net/mailman/listinfo/slime-devel
* Mark H. David [2009-11-17 09:09+0100] writes:
I never really heard of anyone intentionally running SLIME without running the REPL.
Now you have: I don't use it.
I thought the REPL was the essence of using SLIME.
No, it's not. Using Slime was always supposed to feel like programming Elisp which rarely involves a repl.
At least, I think it's the most common way people run SLIME. If I'm at all close to right, I would still like to see it there on that main installation doc page.
By not putting it there, we making it crystal clear that the REPL is a contrib and separated from Slime.
Couldn't it shown as an example along with explaining that it's a "contrib", but it's the most commonly used one, and then sending them off to the contrib doc for extra information? That's what I'd like to see.
There was already a link to the contrib section. I added one in the *inferior-lisp* paragraph and recommend slime-repl and slime-fancy in the contrib section.
Helmut
-
Attila Lendvai -
Helmut Eller -
Madhu -
Mark H. David -
Stas Boukarev -
Tobias C. Rittweiler