On Tue, 4 Jan 2011 05:10:55 -0600, Gabriel Dos Reis <g...@integrable-solutions.net> wrote: > On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 10:13 AM, Samium Gromoff <_deepf...@feelingofgreen.ru> > wrote: > > My impression was that ECL doesn't /add/ information anywhere -- it merely > > /forwards/ whatever is fed to it by autoconf. It's not intent, merely a > > lack of sophistication. > > Yeah, there was an earlier assertion by Juanjo: > # I already mentioned the problem with exporting Autoconf's detection > of processor, > # which on some platforms is flawed (intentionally, btw).
Now, I hope, you don't read this as Juan's intentional reduction of the autoconf's output, don't you? What Juan says, in your quote, is that /Autoconf/ intentionally produces flawed processor identification information. > It has been a long day and a short night, and I'm a bit jet lagged. > I don't see this discussion getting anywhere, and I don't see any chances > of progress now when I'm jet lagged than when I was not. I already > said I was dropping the issue. Now, wait, Juan pulled out some code to solve your problem, you cannot just disappear, the onus is upon you to evaluate his proposal! : -) > My naivete has been to think from the outset, when I reported what was > causing the build failure and made suggestion (that was shut down based on > completely different interpretation of what I meant) that it was just a > question > of explaining and if I tried hard enough it should be resolved. However, what > ensued proved me wrong. and the discussion over the week has significantly > cut into any appetite I had developed over the last couple of years > in contributing to make ECL a better alternative to other Lisp systems > out there. Now, it's a hard problem, and you've had phylosophical differences (Juan appears to value high portability, whereas you seem to need a high degree of completeness). I understand that this might not be the best moment to discuss this further, in your position, but there is no need for hard feelings either, really. > I certainly was disposed to help implement missing features if the proposal > was > deemed of interest (and of course subject to improvements.) We never got to > that point, I doubt we ever will. Juan has just posted code, so it's not that bad. : -) > Reading past messages suggests that most ECL users who expressed themselves > are either against, or don't care, or seem to understand but believe > it is not an ECL > problem. Thankfully, you don't have to convince the users to implement a feature. : -) -- regards, Samium Gromoff -- "Actually I made up the term 'object-oriented', and I can tell you I did not have C++ in mind." - Alan Kay (OOPSLA 1997 Keynote) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Learn how Oracle Real Application Clusters (RAC) One Node allows customers to consolidate database storage, standardize their database environment, and, should the need arise, upgrade to a full multi-node Oracle RAC database without downtime or disruption http://p.sf.net/sfu/oracle-sfdevnl _______________________________________________ Ecls-list mailing list Ecls-list@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ecls-list
