[slime-devel] inspector for clisp
i just commited an implementation of the inspector for clisp. however it only runs on the CVS version of clisp (the one which has a complete MOP). how important is it that slime runs on clisp 2.33? -- -Marco Ring the bells that still can ring. Forget your perfect offering. There is a crack in everything. That's how the light gets in. -Leonard Cohen
marco writes:
i just commited an implementation of the inspector for clisp. however it only runs on the CVS version of clisp (the one which has a complete MOP).
how important is it that slime runs on clisp 2.33?
Just tag the last version of slime that work with clisp 2.33.2. Soon enough people will have upgraded clisp and will be able to use latest slime. -- __Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/ Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we.
Pascal J.Bourguignon <pjb@informatimago.com> writes:
Just tag the last version of slime that work with clisp 2.33.2.
1) what should i name the tag? (CLISP_SANS_MOP?) 2) is cvs rtag -D '2004-09-12 21:00' the right cvs incarnation for this? -- -Marco Ring the bells that still can ring. Forget your perfect offering. There is a crack in everything. That's how the light gets in. -Leonard Cohen
marco <mb@bese.it> writes:
Pascal J.Bourguignon <pjb@informatimago.com> writes:
Just tag the last version of slime that work with clisp 2.33.2.
1) what should i name the tag? (CLISP_SANS_MOP?)
Let's just use FAIRLY-STABLE, which is already in an appropriate place at SLIME-1-0. CLISP users should stick with that for the moment. Is the issue that the inspector is broken for non-CVS CLISP or that SLIME doesn't work at all? If the latter it would be good to make it mostly-compatible if that isn't too hard/ugly. Cheers, Luke
Luke Gorrie writes:
marco <mb@bese.it> writes:
Pascal J.Bourguignon <pjb@informatimago.com> writes:
Just tag the last version of slime that work with clisp 2.33.2.
1) what should i name the tag? (CLISP_SANS_MOP?)
Let's just use FAIRLY-STABLE, which is already in an appropriate place at SLIME-1-0. CLISP users should stick with that for the moment.
FAIRLY-STABLE is a moving target. What about a production software written with clisp 2.33.1 that would need maintenance in six months? CVS Tags are not costly.
Is the issue that the inspector is broken for non-CVS CLISP or that SLIME doesn't work at all? If the latter it would be good to make it mostly-compatible if that isn't too hard/ugly.
-- __Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/ Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we.
Pascal J.Bourguignon <pjb@informatimago.com> writes:
FAIRLY-STABLE is a moving target. What about a production software written with clisp 2.33.1 that would need maintenance in six months?
If you need this I'd suggest version 1.0 (aka SLIME-1-0). The current needs exactly match the traditional use of FAIRLY-STABLE: a version that should work for everything in cases where HEAD doesn't. Cheers, Luke
Luke Gorrie <luke@synap.se> writes:
Is the issue that the inspector is broken for non-CVS CLISP or that SLIME doesn't work at all? If the latter it would be good to make it mostly-compatible if that isn't too hard/ugly.
it wasn't too hard after all. i put in some dark and evil read time conditionals which pick between the "real" inspector and a dummy implementation which tells the user to upgrade. it's not great, and i'd delete the code as soon as clisp 2.34 comes out, but at least slime compiles, loads and the rest of the inspector works. -- -Marco Ring the bells that still can ring. Forget your perfect offering. There is a crack in everything. That's how the light gets in. -Leonard Cohen
marco <mb@bese.it> writes:
it wasn't too hard after all. i put in some dark and evil read time conditionals which pick between the "real" inspector and a dummy implementation which tells the user to upgrade. it's not great, and i'd delete the code as soon as clisp 2.34 comes out, but at least slime compiles, loads and the rest of the inspector works.
Great!
marco writes:
Pascal J.Bourguignon <pjb@informatimago.com> writes:
Just tag the last version of slime that work with clisp 2.33.2.
1) what should i name the tag? (CLISP_SANS_MOP?)
It should be documented. CLISP_SANS_MOP is ok. I've got a script to fetch all the tags in a repository but it's not efficient.
2) is cvs rtag -D '2004-09-12 21:00' the right cvs incarnation for this?
If you started MOP modifications after that date, yes. cvs -d :pserver:anonymous@common-lisp.net:/project/slime/cvsroot \ rtag -D '2004-09-12 21:00' CLISP_SANS_MOP slime -- __Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/ Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we.
marco schrieb:
i just commited an implementation of the inspector for clisp. however it only runs on the CVS version of clisp (the one which has a complete MOP).
how important is it that slime runs on clisp 2.33?
Not immediately, but in the long run I'd need it for my work. -- Reini Urban http://xarch.tu-graz.ac.at/home/rurban/
participants (4)
-
Luke Gorrie -
marco -
Pascal J.Bourguignon -
Reini Urban