> StumpWM was running on Common Lisp, now it is running > on one implementation, specifically. Does it deviate from standard or > what is the technical reason behind it, that I may understand?
The standard doesn't specify specify how a lot of things that we need work, ej pipes, accessing a file's atime. Implementations do. StumpWM was never written in portable Common Lisp, so it is inaccurate to say to say it was 'running on Common Lisp'. There were always unsupported implementations. We just dropped support for all implementations except SBCL. I supported their David's decision because SBCL provides easy access to OS functionality through sb-posix and sb-unix which is something we need if we are to improve the event-loop. Also having several implementations of the same feature (ej the io-loop had an SBCL implementation and a fallback one) makes maintenance harder. I could see the case for preferring ECL or CCL, due to binary size or a superior garbage collector but, CLISP is an abandoned implementation. Supporting it was becoming harder. For example, recently Joram took an inordinate amount of time to track where an error that only occurred on CLISP[0] was occurring on CLISP as Pressing V on the frame didn't work on CLISP. Granted the error was on our part for not writing the loop in a portable manner. I hope CLISP development resumes as it provides a nice shelll experience for Common Lisp which may help newbies. > SBCL cannot implement > the readline due to licensing issues, and so many other > implementations. SBCL cannot use readline[2] but it can certainly implement its functionality. See linedit[2] as an example. Although it is unmantained, mainly because as Loke said, most people don't use Common Lisp from the shell.That is incorrect. see. for a readline [0]: https://github.com/stumpwm/stumpwm/commit/53bc4eab3c559b624c5832e8d17ee59c264d259e [1]: If you agree with Stallman's ridiculous interpretation of what constitutes derived work. [2]: https://github.com/nikodemus/linedit On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 12:49 AM, Jean Louis <bugs@gnu.support> wrote: > On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 11:00:33AM +0800, Elias Mårtenson wrote: > > On 26 January 2017 at 03:21, Jean Louis <bugs@gnu.support> wrote: > > > > Not sure if my email went out, due to network breaking on my side. > > > > > > CLISP has readline built-in, it is well documented and GNU project, > > > similar like GCL (which I currently cannot compile). I do not miss > > > myself any feature, that is very specific personal opinion, you may > > > loose it. > > > > > > Matter is similar to choice of the shell, like zsh, bash, or something > > > like that. I use CLISP often as main "shell" and working environment. > > > > > > > Fair enough, but just because you use CLISP as a terminal doesn't mean > that > > your StumpWM has to use the same implementation. > > It that logical? StumpWM was running on Common Lisp, now it is running > on one implementation, specifically. Does it deviate from standard or > what is the technical reason behind it, that I may understand? > > > After all, I use zsh as my shell, and I don't expect my WM to run in > > it. :-) > > That is Lisp, not just Window Manager, and also that statement is not > logical, especially to StumpWM, the programmable window manager. > > > Also, you might want to look into using Emacs and SLIME. This is how > > pretty much all Lisp programmers use it, and this is also the reason > > why almost none of the major Lisp implementations has any line > > editing facility. > > The reason why GCL and CLISP use readline is due to their licensing, > they are compatible with the readline library. SBCL cannot implement > the readline due to licensing issues, and so many other > implementations. > > Somebody writing about that, should always know about Emacs and SLIME, > and I am certainly using it, however your impression of how Lisp > should be used does not make REPL un-usable, quite contrary, > especially with the readline and completion built-in REPL in CLISP is > increasing productivity, as one cannot do everything with Emacs. > > Jean > > _______________________________________________ > Stumpwm-devel mailing list > Stumpwm-devel@nongnu.org > https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/stumpwm-devel > -- "I object to doing things that computers can do." — Olin Shivers
_______________________________________________ Stumpwm-devel mailing list Stumpwm-devel@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/stumpwm-devel
