Re: Re: [Ilisp-help] edit-definitions-lisp problems

>  
>     BTW: I appreciate your suggestion to consider using SLIME . . .
>  
>  My suggestion?

Sorry, I got confused by another response from "Robert P. Goldman"
<[email protected]> who said:

>  
>  >>>>> "Lynn" == Lynn Quam <[email protected]> writes:
>  
>      >> With all due respect, is there some reason you are using ILISP instead
>      >> of Allegro's ELI?  
>  
>      Lynn> I almost exclusively use CMUCL since I am developing a
>      Lynn> system for open source distribution and assume than many or
>      Lynn> most users will not want to purchase Allegro.
>  
>  For license reasons, I like to have CMUCL ports of my software.  But
>  since my employers are willing to buy Allegro, I develop under
>  Allegro, with the superior Emacs interface and the better debugger,
>  and then try to port....
>  
>      >> When you are running Allegro, Ilisp is far less
>      >> capable than ELI, which can, e.g., ask the running lisp process to
>      >> find definitions for it.
>  
>      Lynn> Yes, I agree that ILISP has many deficiencies, primarily due to its
>      Lynn> communication with the Lisp subprocess.
>  
>  I think a lot of that has to do with the fact that ILISP cannot assume
>  that the subprocess can have multiple listeners, meaning that the
>  listener/repl state can (in my experience, often does) get gaffed.
>  
>  Have you looked into SLIME, the ILISP replacement?  Seems like the
>  CMUCL and SBCL developers, at least, have abandoned ILISP for
>  SLIME....
>  
>  Good luck!
>  R


-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: IBM Linux Tutorials.
Become an expert in LINUX or just sharpen your skills.  Sign up for IBM's
Free Linux Tutorials.  Learn everything from the bash shell to sys admin.
Click now! http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=1278&alloc_id=3371&op=click