[cells-devel] Release update

[Thomas F. Burdick]

Kenny Tilton writes:
 > 
 > 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.

Actually, I think it means that there is something broken on MCL,
because the tests run to completion on SBCL.

 > 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.

Oh yeah.  So the list is: Allegro, SBCL, LispWorks, CMUCL, CLISP, OpenMCL.
Probably works: Corman
Partially works: MCL

 > 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.

I had wondered about that.  It did make the SBCL port more "exciting"
because there were a couple cases of using a subclass' accessor on a
parent class, which SBCL is picky about.  I had meant to malign the
conc-name decision, but I guess I forgot :-)