Re: CLX and common-lisp.net

> I don't actually see any point for a common-lisp.net project for CLX.
> There is no missing infrastructure that is worth speaking of;
> telent-clx is already portable across sbcl, openmcl, and ecl; and the
> maintainers of other lisp implementations are aware of the existence
> of the telent-clx repository: if they do not choose to use it as their
> implementation, that is their privilege.

Actually, I'm not sure we do.

I was just visiting the list to find out how I could go about submitting
diffs to add support for modern Allegro CL version (6.2 and newer), when
I stumbled upon this message..

I recently went through and merged in code from the clx module still
distributed with Allegro CL and was able to run the demos successfully.
I'd very much like to have these changes added if that's possible.
 
> What actual advantages do you think a different hosting would provide?
> (And would the work spent in any transition be better spent in adding
> functionality, either cross-implementation or by patching in support
> for other lisps?)

Franz, for one, would very much like to be able to point users at a
supported CLX module (which we currently do not). While there's a bunch
more work necessary to make that happen, making telent-clx run under
Allegro is a step in the right direction.

-Mikel


_______________________________________________
Portable-clx mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.metacircles.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/portable-clx
See http://www.cliki.net/clx for darcs URL(s)