[cells-devel] Release update

[Kenny Tilton]

Thomas F. Burdick wrote:

>I'm pretty much just waiting on an answer from the OpenMCL developers
>telling me where we're supposed to be getting MOP functions from.  For
>kicks, I checked Classic MCL this weekend, and it partially works.
>One of the unbound-cells tests failed, and I didn't feel very inspired
>to debug it.
>
My bad. I hate testing. I did not even run the tests under AllegroCL. I 
just fired up Cello and The Fabulous Spinning Shape Demo. To be honest, 
I would not be surprised if some tests need revision. And if I go ahead 
and remove autodetection of cycles, this will break any test designed to 
confirm that cycles are autodetected -- just do not remember if I have one.

>  That does mean it got pretty far through the test suite,
>though.  When I get the answer back from the OpenMCL developers, I'll
>update the candidate, and ask the couple of you who had problems with
>it to see if it works.  Then, release :-)
>
>Here's the implementations I think Cells supports:
>
>Allegro, SBCL, LispWorks, CMUCL, OpenMCL.
>
>MCL was formerly supported and should not be very difficult to get
>working again.
>
>What about CLISP?  Is it in the same category as MCL, or does anyone
>use it?
>
Cells has always been tested under CLisp, and Cells-Gtk Classic was 
developed on CLisp. It should work there as well, if anyone cares to 
test. CLisp now has better (great, they say) MOP support, so things 
should only be getting easier.

One issue with CLisp was some crazy defstruct/include/conc-name 
behavior. Gratuitous noncompliance crap. Hsssss! :) That is why all the 
Cell defstructs have different conc-names.

btw, Cells has been observed running satisfactorily on CormanCL.

kt