[cells-devel] Release update

[Thomas F. Burdick]

Kenny Tilton writes:
 > 
 > Thomas F. Burdick wrote:
 > 
 > >Kenny Tilton writes:
 > > > 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.
 >
 > Hmm. I seem to recall this. You could have gone (and can go) ahead and 
 > fix any of those. Good for SBCL!

Oh, I certainly fixed them -- if I hadn't, Cells would not be running
on SBCL, and the software I delivered for my final two contracts as a
consultant wouldn't run.

 > >  I had meant to malign the
 > >conc-name decision, but I guess I forgot :-)
 >
 > When I saw you cross swords with Sam or Bruno on c.l.l. over gratuitous 
 > differences i thought this issue might be part of it. One of them 
 > actually responded to me on this issue and heartily defended their 
 > approach. Oh, well. Glad to see their other progress on MOP and FFI. I 
 > wonder if they still mess up this concname thing.

Heh, I meant I had intended to malign your non-idiomatic use of
conc-names in Cells, not realizing that it was to support CLISP.
That's definately on the list of gratuitous incompatabilities I hate
in CLISP -- I'm definately interested in seeing how much of this gets
fixed.  They seem to have grown an interest in being able to bootstrap
SBCL, so that should help push them in a compliant direction.