Re: Preprocessor

Craig> Raymond Toy writes: >> >> Craig> The last time I tried gcl it claimed CLtL1 compatibility which doesn't Craig> include CLOS. Has it moved closer to ANSI Common Lisp? I already Craig> Then I would have a difficult time calling it "actively maintained". Well, Clisp claims CLtL2 and ANSI compatibility but I think there are some things that are specified by ANSI that will never be done because they think it's wrong. So is clisp not actively maintained? Even though there have been 2 releases in the last couple of months? Craig> If those things were available in the development environment then Craig> XEmacs might use them :-) Craig> Modes are much easier to implement with an object system. Craig> Zmacs implements each mode (both major and minor) as Craig> flavors (Zetalisp object system). It makes it easier to Craig> inherit things that are common to all modes. But if modes are required to use the object system who's going to port over all the old code? Not me. Craig> Packages would be helpful in segregating the different lisp packages. People already do this by prefixing stuff. Having packages won't change existing code. That's why CLtL1 isn't so bad. There's so much old stuff that no one really wants to port it all over, and no one wants to maintain a version for XEmacs and Emacs. I think that's hard enough already. Besides, Hvroje's message about Kyle's approach is the right solution to me. No user-visible changes to the lisp code, but potentially major changes in speed. (That's why I stopped using VM. Too slow to load up my 100 MB mail files. If VM becomes fast, I might switch back.) Ray