Re: A Working Common Lisp Implementation

David Anderson wrote: > s-protobuf appears to be aiming for completedness, Completeness is always good. I'm not sure if I'll get around to implementing services or extensions anytime soon though. Services may not even be very relevant, given the differences between the C++/Java and Lisp object

Re: A Working Common Lisp Implementation

I've taken your advice and removed the other two links. On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 1:22 AM, David Anderson wrote: > Mine (http://code.google.com/p/common-lisp-protobuf/) was essentially > an experiment to train myself in Lisp, and was never a fully > functional implementation. Since I don't have the

Re: A Working Common Lisp Implementation

Mine (http://code.google.com/p/common-lisp-protobuf/) was essentially an experiment to train myself in Lisp, and was never a fully functional implementation. Since I don't have the time currently to make it into a full implementation, and since s-protobuf appears to be aiming for completedness, I'

Re: A Working Common Lisp Implementation

I've added this to the list of implementations: http://code.google.com/p/protobuf/wiki/ThirdPartyAddOns Looks like we have two other Common Lisp implementations already, but neither one appears to be maintained. :/ On Sat, Sep 26, 2009 at