On 07/08/07, Nikodemus Siivola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The only things I'm unhappy about are grabbing package names like > MACH. [...] > (a) Use names like OSIX, OSMACH, OSWIN -- compromise between putting > them in the OSICAT "namespace" and using something terse.
Those names do sound like a good compromise. (And I think Corman already uses WIN.) What do you think Stelian? Also, OSIMACH and OSIWIN? Or is that one character too many? > Other stuff (aka directions to move in): while I'm OK with having > OSICAT-POSIX / > OSIX on Windows, in the long term the Windows side should probably not build > on > it. Sure. > So that everything doesn't become a huge #+foo mess, > there should be src/windows.lisp, which implements the nonportable contents of > src/osicat.lisp for Windows, etc. Agreed. That approach worked really well for CFFI. -- Luís Oliveira http://student.dei.uc.pt/~lmoliv/ _______________________________________________ iolib-devel mailing list [email protected] http://common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/iolib-devel
