Requesting input on some possible low-level changes

>>>>> "James" == James Amundson <amundson@users.sourceforge.net> writes:

    James> I'm glad you are asking these questions. It seems to me
    James> that replacing the real REPL wouldn't be any loss. If I am
    James> missing something, I would like to hear about it.

It seems the only difference would be whatever customizations the
underlying lisp has for its REPL.  Things like Allegro's
shortcuts. (:c (?) to compile a file, etc.)  But I don't use these, so
I won't miss them.

    James> The standard ways of getting to the REPL are to_lisp() and
    James> ctrl-c. Both would be modified to take you to the maxima
    James> REPL. Here is the simple prototype REPL I've been using:

I'm accustomed to Ctrl-c getting me to the Lisp debugger.  I'll miss
that....  to_lisp() appears to be a bit broken currently, anyway.

    James> Of course, the whole point of introducing
    James> maxima-read-eval-print-loop would be to have hooks for
    James> indicating that input is required. I haven't added any
    James> hooks yet, however.

I think making the interaction robust is a very worthy goal and worth
any minor differences in the REPL, even if it means I can't get to the
debugger with my normal usage.  And I usually only use the plain
command-line.

Ray