On Nov 15, 2004, at 3:47 PM, Raymond Toy wrote:
> mikel wrote: >> Again, the big missing features seem to be Unicode support and Win32 >> support. SBCL has the first, and CMUCL seems about to have the >> second. Any other thoughts anyone cares to share would be welcome. > > CMUCL did have support for unicode about 2 years ago or so. > Unfortunately, it was never part of the main code so it's rotted quite > a bit. I tried briefly to bring it up-to-date, but being illiterate > and not having any need for unicode myself, I gave up. But perhaps > this is motivation to bring it up-to-date. That would certainly be very useful to us. Carl said something about doing a Unicode implementation based on some Lucid code; are those separate codebases? --me
