On Tue, Sep 02, 2008 at 02:45:22PM -0400, Raymond Toy wrote:
> Oliver Kullmann wrote:
> >I cannot present a small example; I could extract the functions, and
> >send it in a file: At the end it shouldn't be too big (max 50 lines
> >I guess), but it nevertheless will cost my some time, and so I would
> >only do so if somebody really wanted to investigate the case.
>
> 50 lines doesn't seem so big.
>
> >P.S. When I've time again, I'll try GCL and CMUCL (these seems to
> >be the last chances --- SBCL needs another Lisp, and with my
> >experiences now I say "no, thank you").
>
> You keep saying SBCL needs another lisp. What exactly do you mean by this?
>
At
http://www.sbcl.org/getting.html
under "Compiling SBCL from Source" it says
SBCL can be compiled from source code using another ANSI-compliant Common Lisp implementation.
Now the whole point of searching for another Lisp (other than CLisp) is that it seems
not possible to reliably and automatically install CLisp on the (actually rather
restricted) range of machines I'm using (from sources).
(So if I had a Lisp version which I could (reliably and automatically) install,
I wouldn't need SBCL.)
Perhaps the CLisp version used to compile SBCL doesn't matter so much?
Then one could use the CLisp version which comes with typical Linux
distributions (my library only supports Linux machines)?
If everything else fails, I'll try that.
Oliver