Subject: CLtL2 or CLHS ?

From: Bruno Haible <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 1998 19:41:04 +0100 (MET)

Hi all,

When you program in Common Lisp, what do you use as a reference:
The CL HyperSpec in HTML format, or the CLtL2 spec (as a book, or
in HTML or PostScript format) ?

I am asking in order to know how to do things in CLISP in the few
cases where the two specs disagree (e.g. `special-operator-p' or
`simple-condition-format-control').

Thanks for numerous responses.

              Bruno

! To unsubscribe from the clisp-list mailing list, send mail to     !
!                    [email-masked]                        !
! including the two words "unsubscribe clisp-list" as message body. !

---

From: Sam Steingold <[email-masked]>
Date: 18 Feb 1998 15:07:46 -0500

>>>> In a very interesting message <[email-masked]>
>>>> Sent on Wed, 18 Feb 1998 10:42:19 -0800 (PST)
>>>> Honorable Bruno Haible <[email-masked]> writes
>>>> on the subject of "CLtL2 or CLHS ?":
 >> 

I have both and use them interchangeably. I use CLHS for function
definitions using Naggum's hyperspec.el and CLtL2 for index.

 >> `simple-condition-format-control').

Huh?!!! I am surprised you ask this question.
I would think it is obvious that the ANSI CL standard supersedes CLtL2
*and* CLtL1, so CLHS is the authoritative source, while CLtL2 is just a
slightly obsolete auxiliary text.

Am I missing something?

BTW, both excl::arglist (in ACL) and kernel:%function-arglist (in CMUCL)
provide names of the arguments, not just the number thereof, which is
far more convenient than sys::function-signature in CLISP.

Thanks
-- 
Sam Steingold, running RedHat5 GNU/Linux (http://www.linux.org)
Microsoft is not the answer. Microsoft is a question, and the answer is Linux,
the choice of the GNU (http://www.gnu.org) generation.
Why use Windows, when there are Doors?

---

From: Valentino Kyriakides <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 1998 17:44:31 +0100

> in HTML or PostScript format) ?

Since there is an CL ANSI spec, I use CL HyperSpec in HTML format!!!

--
Valentino Kyriakides

Lavielle EDV Systemberatung GmbH & Co.  Tel.: +49(0)40 / 65 80 8 - 997
Lotharstrasse 2b, D-22041 Hamburg, Germany  Fax.:  +49(0)40 / 65 808-202
http://www.lavielle.com/                    mailto: [email-masked]

---

From: Bruno Haible <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 1998 19:51:46 +0100 (MET)

> slightly obsolete auxiliary text.

I am surprised, too: The poll ends with a tie. 50% use CLtL2, 50% use CLHS.
Some trend is visible, though: The more well-known CLISP users (``experts'')
use CLHS.

I will strive for CLHS compatibility, and change the readmes to refer to
CLHS.

> far more convenient than sys::function-signature in CLISP.

CLISP doesn't store the argument names. Each of these symbols would
occupy approximately 50 bytes in memory. The memory is better utilized
if you add documentation strings to your functions.

Zbyszek Jurkiewicz <[email-masked]> wrote:

> If I can vote, I propose in cases mentioned use RATIONAL solutions
> rather than holding to one particular wording.

That's actually what I've been trying to do. I fully agree with you.

> By the way, why the pathnames on MS DOS implementation work differently
> than on Win95 or Linux or whatever.  On Linux or Win95 one has
> 
> > (pathname-directory "bps/cps/cps.lsp")
> (:RELATIVE "bps" "cps")
> 
> while on MS-DOS (latest official version, 1997)
> 
> > (pathname-directory "bps/cps/cps.lsp")
> (:RELATIVE ("bps" . "") ("cps" . ""))
>
> Is there any reason for this behavior (incorrect acc. to the standard) ?

Yes, the reasons are that
a) When I wrote the pathname stuff, I had only CLtL1 at hand,
b) On DOS, "bps./" and "bps/" are the same file names. Instead of hacking
   EQUALP, I chose a representation which was adapted to DOS filename
   semantics.

Btw, there are new DOS binaries in
ftp://ftp2.cons.org/pub/lisp/clisp/binaries/dos/.
They were made from clisp-1997-12-06 and include Spanish support and
more recent versions of EMX and RSX.

Bruno