Re: Slime/abcl version compatibility
Alan Ruttenberg <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.editors.j.devel |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <CAFKQJ8mV6argKZGHiE-9ovS0RfsrUUQ-ikc-7gWsVPrVE5qGmQ__7612.81851814619$1483989101$gmane$org@mail.gmail.com> |
I'll have a look - thanks. Its a fairly high overhaul rather than a few incremental improvements which is why I'm a bit reluctant. SBCL is rather more mature than ABCL①... On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 12:56 PM Luís Oliveira <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 5:31 PM, Alan Ruttenberg > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Rather than cluttering up the newer version what do you think of having > > slime include the older version and have the swank loader conditionally > load > > old or new depending on the ABCL version? > > > > There is also slime maintenance cost associated with having it be > backward > > compatible. > > FWIW, swank-sbcl.lisp typically accrues conditionals for dealing with > older versions until sufficient time has passed (usually years) and > said conditionals become a nuisance. > > Having two different swank implementations for older and newer ABCLs > seems worse than conditionals in terms of maintenance costs. > swank-sbcl.lisp contains various tricks for making conditionals more > manageable. Perhaps some of those practices might help in this case? > > -- > Luís Oliveira > http://kerno.org/~luis/ >