On Tue, 2003-02-18 at 10:01, Raymond Toy wrote:
> While trying to compile maxima with ACL 6.2, I ran into a few
> problems. The first of which is that SI is already package in ACL.
>
> To get around this, I changed the name from SI to CL-INFO. I'd like
> to make this change permanent. I've already tested this with clisp,
> cmucl, and gcl. They all find the info docs just fine.
Very good. I'm happier with the name "CL-INFO" than I was with "SI",
anyway.
> With this change and a few other minor ones, ACL 6.2 sucessfully
> compiles and runs maxima. Some outstanding issues include not being
> able to find the info docs, errors in error handling, and any thing
> that would cause an error message causes acl to quit.
Sounds like a good start. I believe a student of Richard's also had some
modifications for ACL. It would be good to cooperate.
> However, one nice thing is that you can take the resulting fasl files
> and load them up in the trial acl 6.2 and run maxima. (Trial acl 6.2
> can't build it and can't load the dxl file, however.)
Ah. Interesting. I once tried to build Maxima with the trial ACL, but I
ran out of heap space. If the trial version is sufficient to run, but
not compile, maxima, that's still worth something.
I actually had the possibility of distributing ACL fasl files in mind
when I designed the installation layout.
> Would these changes and the support for ACL6.2 fit within the goals of
> post 5.9.0?
Yes. In fact, I had ACL support in mind for 5.9.1. To my mind, there are
six lisp implementations that are logical possibilities for maxima: GCL,
Clisp, CMUCL, ACL, SBCL and OpenMCL. From a quick perusal of messages on
the list it looks like all six will be available soon.
We may have to make a distinction between "official" support and
"unofficial" support for various lisps. I'm not going to be able to do
testing on all six myself, at the very least. No decisions need to be
made about officialness yet, however.
--
James Amundson <amundson@fnal.gov>