<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 05/13/2016 04:03 PM, Dmitry Igrishin
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAP+w2GrDucL8GL7FpMcWjYC0PWA7y3WO=pX5_qEHbrp8w7oVrQ@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr"><br>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">2016-05-13 20:02 GMT+03:00 Gary Byers
<span dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:gb@clozure.com" target="_blank">gb@clozure.com</a>></span>:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">I don't
use SLIME at all, largely because of the
:COMMUNICATION-STYLE :SPAWN issues<br>
that Park Sungmin's patch tries to address and avoid. I
have always assumed that people<br>
who do use SLIME with CCL either don't notice those issues
or don't care about them as much<br>
as I do, and that people who use SLIME with other
implementations don't experience the same<br>
issues because of (possibly very subtle)
implementation-dependent details related to how<br>
threads and dynamic/special variable bindings interact
with each other. People do run into<br>
those issues fairly often, and my explanations of those
issues seem to fall on deaf (or at<br>
least very bored) ears.<br>
</blockquote>
<div>Gary, could you explain please your workflow on hacking
Lisp without using the SLIME? I've</div>
<div>always considered it as a de facto standard free IDE
for Lisp.</div>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
I usually us ilisp. which only works at all under xemacs. ilisp
development nominally stopped about<br>
10-12 years ago, and whether or not xemacs is still being developed
is unclear. I don't think that <br>
using ilisp is a desirable option for anyone (including me)There
have been other things that have bothered me about<br>
SLIME (as well the communication-style/spawn issues), but I would
move away from ilisp in a heartbeat<br>
if not for those issues.<br>
<br>
I -think- that most people would agree that selecting and executing
a set of lisp forms from an editor buffer<br>
should ideally be equivalent to (though perhaps more convenient
than) executing the same set of forms by typing<br>
them directly into a REPL in some sort of terminal window. When the
forms in question depend on and/or modify<br>
the dynamic execution context (thread, and thread-specific dynamic
variable bindings) in which they are executed, this<br>
may not be true<br>
Whether or not someone is affected by these issues and the degree to
which they are likely depends on their editing<br>
style and habits; people may find that it simply works better to
select and execute an entire PROGN than it does to<br>
select and execute each of that PROGN's subforms, even if they may
not be entirely clear on on why this is the case.<br>
see (for instance)
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="https://lists.clozure.com/pipermail/openmcl-devel/2015-November/011091.html"><https://lists.clozure.com/pipermail/openmcl-devel/2015-November/011091.html></a>,
where that<br>
message was part of a discussion about apparent differences between
what the language spec says and what some<br>
widely-used QuickLisp package expects.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>