Richard Fateman wrote:
> "Vadim V. Zhytnikov" wrote:
> >
>
> > It seems to me that the best strategy is to maintain Maxima compatible
> > with as many background lisps as possible both free and commercial
> > (if someone cares to do this). Tighting Maxima to any particular Lisp
> > incarnation which would be a terrible mistake. Whenever possible
> > any piece of Maxima code which is particular Lisp dependent
> > must be replaced by standard compliant code. This is not easy way but
> > it seems that this is the only way to make Maxima future safe.
> > Lisps come and go...
>
> Most of the machine/implementation code in Maxima is, I think,
> in a very few files that define, depending upon the target
> machine, different macro expansions.
>
Yes this is 99.9% true. But even to compile Maxima from
current cvs HEAD on clisp one need to edit few lines of
code. Why don't make Maxima to work with clisp out of the
box? And I want all features - debugger, all tests,
on line info help, plots and without any "unknown function"
calls.
--
[ Vadim V. Zhytnikov <vvzhy@mail.ru> <vvzhy@td.lpi.ac.ru> ]