Are there any plans for a 1.1 or 1.0.1 or whatever "official" release. (I think I've read all the SLIME messages that have come across the transom in recent months but I haven't been paying super close attention so may have missed an announcement or discussion.) I ask because after the 25th when I turn in my last page proof, I'm going to be spending a month getting together a Lisp in a Box distro that includes the code from my book. And I seem to recall that SLIME 1.0 doesn't work with the newer versions of SBCL (because of the Unicode support added to SBCL?). So from my purely selfish point of view, now would be an excellent time for an official upgrade of SLIME. If that's not going to happen I'll probably build a LIAB distro with some snapshot of CVS SLIME that seems to work well.
Also, if there are specific things that need to happen before a 1.1 or 1.0.1 release of SLIME, let me know; maybe I can tackle some of them.
-Peter
Peter Seibel peter@javamonkey.com writes:
So from my purely selfish point of view, now would be an excellent time for an official upgrade of SLIME.
Personally I like the idea of building a 1.1 release to coincide with the book and I think the current CVS code is quite suitable.
Congratulations on your coming milestone and see you in amsterdam :-)
Luke Gorrie luke@synap.se writes:
Peter Seibel peter@javamonkey.com writes:
So from my purely selfish point of view, now would be an excellent time for an official upgrade of SLIME.
Personally I like the idea of building a 1.1 release to coincide with the book and I think the current CVS code is quite suitable.
Excellent. Let me know what I can do to help
Congratulations on your coming milestone and see you in amsterdam :-)
Thanks. And I'm definitely looking forward to my trip to the Netherlands.
-Peter
Peter Seibel peter@javamonkey.com writes:
Luke Gorrie luke@synap.se writes:
Personally I like the idea of building a 1.1 release to coincide with the book and I think the current CVS code is quite suitable.
Excellent. Let me know what I can do to help
Pointing out holes in the documentation would be useful.
What do others think about making a 1.1? Helmut? Marco?
Luke Gorrie luke@synap.se writes:
Pointing out holes in the documentation would be useful.
What do others think about making a 1.1? Helmut? Marco?
What was the release date again? End of March?
Regarding documentation, I think we should add a few words about multithreading, explain how dynamic variables work, and that SBCL works differently. A word about exotic characters would be nice too. That CLISP is not interruptible on Windows is also worth to mention.
In the code are now quite a few places with more than 80 columns. It wouldn't hurt to clean that up. The new tracing code needs some testing. AFAICT, it doesn't work at all with OpenMCL.
Source locations with file-positions can cause problems if Emacs uses a different encoding. I don't see a simple fix for that. Perhaps we should document it and wait until somebody has time to think about it.
Some features that could be added are: some authentication and/or unix sockets. Perhaps some kind of REPL in the debugger. But I'm not sure if it is worth the trouble.
What versions should we support? Emacs >= 20 XEmacs ? (21.4) CMUCL >= 18e SBCL >= 0.8.15 OpenMCL ? CLISP >= 2.33 Lispworks >= 4.3 Allegro >= 6.x ABCL ?
Helmut Eller e9626484@stud3.tuwien.ac.at writes:
Luke Gorrie luke@synap.se writes:
Pointing out holes in the documentation would be useful.
What do others think about making a 1.1? Helmut? Marco?
What was the release date again? End of March?
The new tracing code needs some testing. AFAICT, it doesn't work at all with OpenMCL.
I've been thinking that it might be better to bind the "extended" trace command with a prefix arg so that the previous "non-extended" behaviour becomes the default for C-c C-t. This allows all CLs that implement the simpler form of trace to work without problems and only when invoked with C-u C-c C-t will the trace command do something different.
Regards,
António Leitão.
Helmut Eller e9626484@stud3.tuwien.ac.at writes:
Luke Gorrie luke@synap.se writes:
Pointing out holes in the documentation would be useful.
What do others think about making a 1.1? Helmut? Marco?
What was the release date again? End of March?
That'd be great for me. My goal is to build a Lisp in a Box distro for the book that will contain the new SLIME and I need to put that up on the web before the book is published on April 11th. I'm going to be providing a choice Lisp implementations of which one (on GNU/Linux, OS X, and Windows) will be Allegro. So if there are any outstanding Allegro issues on any of those platforms, I'll try to track those down and see if I can get the folks at Franz to help out. Ideally I'll also provide versions with SBCL on GNU/Linux and OS X, Open MCL on OS X, and CLISP on all three platforms.
-Peter
Helmut Eller e9626484@stud3.tuwien.ac.at writes:
Luke Gorrie luke@synap.se writes:
Pointing out holes in the documentation would be useful.
What do others think about making a 1.1? Helmut? Marco?
What was the release date again? End of March?
I can't do very much this month but I will undertake to update the manual as you described. Great if someone can contribute a paragraph about the unicode stuff though (any sharp edges?).
I'll be away after next week (my new life as an installation technician :-)) so I won't make any more noise about a release since I won't be around to work on one. Peter can try his luck at lobbying you guys :-)
Luke Gorrie luke@synap.se writes:
Helmut Eller e9626484@stud3.tuwien.ac.at writes:
Luke Gorrie luke@synap.se writes:
Pointing out holes in the documentation would be useful.
What do others think about making a 1.1? Helmut? Marco?
What was the release date again? End of March?
I can't do very much this month but I will undertake to update the manual as you described. Great if someone can contribute a paragraph about the unicode stuff though (any sharp edges?).
I'll be away after next week (my new life as an installation technician :-)) so I won't make any more noise about a release since I won't be around to work on one. Peter can try his luck at lobbying you guys :-)
So I guess the first question is, are there things about the current CVS head that *must* be fixed before folks are willing to make it an official release. I'd suggest that maybe we look at that in terms of, are there things about CVS head that are broken compared to the 1.0 release such that someone upgrading from 1.0 to 1.1 would be sorry they did? If there aren't, then it seems like at least a 1.0.1 is in order, particularly since 1.0, if I understand correctly, doesn't work with any version of SBCL since Unicode was introduced. (Is that right?)
Is there anything that's been done since 1.0 that has destabilized things in any significant way? (My guess would be no since such a large percentage of SLIME users use CVS and because I seem to have seen a lot of questions to slime-devel answered with, "well, you should really upgrade to CVS head.)
Then, if there are major new features that can be wrapped up (documented, made to work in some reasonable way on all or most Lisps, etc.) maybe it's better to think about a 1.1.
Comments?
-Peter
-
Antonio Menezes Leitao -
Helmut Eller -
Luke Gorrie -
Peter Seibel -
Peter Seibel