With ilisp we could launch various implementation invoking by a command of same name (M-x sbcl, M-x clisp-hs, etc). Then, it would create a buffer named for the implementation instead of *ilisp[1]*. It was then easy to know in which implementation we were working and to switch between implementations, because they were distinguished by the buffer name, clearly indicated in the mode line and in the buffer list.
Now, slime confuses all this, naming all its buffer *slime-repl[N]*.
One thing that could be done is to add the implementation type in the prompt, perhaps with something like:
(defun package-string-for-prompt (package) "Return the shortest nickname (or canonical name) of PACKAGE." (concatenate 'string (lisp-implementation-type) " " (or (canonical-package-nickname package) (auto-abbreviated-package-name package) (shortest-package-nickname package))))
but I think it would be better if slime named its buffer for the implementation type. *clisp/slime[1]*, *sbcl/slime[2]*, for example.
(It may be useful that the inferior lisp buffer includes the implementation type too, or includes always the same "reference number").
Pascal J.Bourguignon pjb@informatimago.com writes:
With ilisp we could launch various implementation invoking by a command of same name (M-x sbcl, M-x clisp-hs, etc). Then, it would create a buffer named for the implementation instead of *ilisp[1]*. It was then easy to know in which implementation we were working and to switch between implementations, because they were distinguished by the buffer name, clearly indicated in the mode line and in the buffer list.
Now, slime confuses all this, naming all its buffer *slime-repl[N]*.
One thing that could be done is to add the implementation type in the prompt, perhaps with something like:
(defun package-string-for-prompt (package) "Return the shortest nickname (or canonical name) of PACKAGE." (concatenate 'string (lisp-implementation-type) " " (or (canonical-package-nickname package) (auto-abbreviated-package-name package) (shortest-package-nickname package))))
Please don't do that. Or if you must, provide a way to turn it off--I like my prompts short which is why I impemented auto abbreviation of package names.
But I *do* like the idea of including the implementation name in the buffer name.
-Peter
On Mon, Oct 04, 2004 at 08:13:31AM -0700, Peter Seibel wrote:
But I *do* like the idea of including the implementation name in the buffer name.
Probably better to have a generic "session name" variable instead of hard-coding it to just the implementation name. That way you could tell apart your "webserver", "CLIM", and "scratch" SBCL sessions. (To me, the purpose of the session is more useful information than the implementation that it's running.)
Obviously it could default to the implementation type, or whatever else is deemed useful.
-bcd
-
Brian Downing -
Pascal J.Bourguignon -
Peter Seibel