Re: Portability with USocket

On May 17, 2011, at 7:06 PM, Chun Tian (binghe) wrote:
> I think my usage of logical pathname should fall into CL standard (I'm not 100% sure about this, but apparently it works on most CLs). However, the logical pathname implementation differ between CL implementations, the ".NEWEST" translation was added for maximum portability, especially needed by SBCL.  [...] I don't know how MCL handle this before, and not sure if MCL's previous behavior obey CL standard ...

MCL may not have been up to spec when it comes to handling logical pathnames with a version component. I place no blame on anybody for that oversight though. I don't think the pathname version has been used much with MCL.

>> The usocket library provokes a latent flaw in MCL by creating a logical pathname translation with a "newest" version component. Details:
>> 
>>   http://code.google.com/p/mcl/issues/detail?id=46&can=1
>> 
>> I have uploaded a patch that should be loaded before using usocket:
>> 
>>   http://code.google.com/p/mcl/source/detail?r=045681d521e5
>> 
>> On May 16, 2011, at 4:44 PM, Terje Norderhaug wrote:
>>> I have updated the Portability wiki page for MCL with a link to the USocket TCP/IP socket interface, which supports MCL.
>>> 
>>> http://code.google.com/p/mcl/wiki/Portability
>>> 
>>> USocket provides a portable alternative to using OpenTransport directly in your MCL applications or modules.
>>> 
>>> Using the portable libraries in place of MCL-specific interfaces facilitates that your code can be used with other Common Lisp implementations.
>>> 
>>> Thanks to Chun Tian (binghe) for bringing USocket to MCL. I have found good use for it in MCLIDE and elsewhere.
>>> 
>>> Any other portable libraries that should be added to the list?
>>> 
>>> -- Terje Norderhaug
>>> [email protected]

-- Terje Norderhaug
   [email protected]





_______________________________________________
info-mcl mailing list
[email protected]
http://clozure.com/mailman/listinfo/info-mcl