Subject: re: portability of .fas files

From: [email-masked] (Don Cohen)
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 94 15:11:07 -0800

I had not even realized that there were macros that expanded differently
on different platforms.  Is this really necessary?  How many such macros
are there and how hard would it be to encapsulate the differences inside
functions instead?  I had definitely hoped for .fas files to be shared
at least between DOS and UNIX machines.

---

From: [email-masked] (Joerg-Cyril Hoehle)
Date: Wed, 21 Dec 94 20:17:31 +0100

> on different platforms.  Is this really necessary?  How many such macros
Well, IMHO you can't have everything a function that can hide system
dependencies. Especially when you need some clean-up forms, macros
come in handy (see user1.lsp:with-keyboard).

 > functions instead?  I had definitely hoped for .fas files to be shared
Don't know. I Didn't grep all #+/-UNIX/DOS/AMIGA/... features. I would
not expect it to be trivial.

One could reasonably assume that Common-Lisp code could be portable
(see J. Schrod's post on this). Good system design would give you only
a few files where specific machine dependencies reside (either within
an implementation on different platforms, or for different
implementations, e.g. CMU, Allegro and others). They would need site-
and user-specific adaption and compilation.

 > at least between DOS and UNIX machines.
Why just these? Because these are the only ones that you are concerned
about? I wouldn't want a CLISP were there would be the kind of
"full-featured" version and another one for the "poor".

 	Joerg Hoehle.
[email-masked]