Re: Success with cmucl-18e

Hi,

I also got it to build. My notes show that I also pushed :new-compiler (which 
I think was removed from *features* in 18e). I had hoped to provide a loom 
patch that cleaned up some of the #+ stuff relvant to CMUCL, but I haven't 
had the time.

For those who haven't heard, CMUCL seems to be coming along nicely. The new 
PCL work seems to bring thing much closer to the standard CLOS and typical 
MOP implementations. 

On Wednesday 18 June 2003 14:19, Josh Jones wrote:
> Hello --
>
> Perhaps this has already been determined, if so, I apologize for the
> extraneous mail.
>
> But, I noted on the website that some mention of user reports about using
> loom with cmucl was made, with instruction to add 'CMU17' to the
> *features* variable.  I have been able to build (and am successfully using
> at least some features of) loom 4.0 using cmucl version 18e, by adding
> both 'CMU17' and 'CLOS' to the *features* variable.  Cmucl does support
> clos, according to their website, but for some reason does not include
> this flag in *features*.
>
> Just thought this info might be of use to others trying to use a similar
> setup.
>
> Josh
> _______________________________________________
> Loom Knowledge Representation Language Forum
> [email protected]
> Change subscription: http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/loom-forum

-- 
Best Regards, 
- Peter 

Peter Denno 
National Institute of Standards and Technology, 
Manufacturing System Integration Division, 
100 Bureau Drive, Mail Stop 8264             Tel: +1 301-975-3595 
Gaithersburg, MD, USA 20899-8264          FAX: +1 301-975-4694
_______________________________________________
Loom Knowledge Representation Language Forum
[email protected]
Change subscription: http://mailman.isi.edu/mailman/listinfo/loom-forum