[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Axiom-developer] RE: Axiom for Windows

From: root
Subject: Re: [Axiom-developer] RE: Axiom for Windows
Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 14:40:51 -0400


> Tim, a while back I understood that you were in the process
> of converting what you have to work with GCL 2.5 under linux.
> How is that going? I recall that you found a problem with
> some missing functionality in the first release of 2.5 (same
> problem under the Windows version) that was later corrected
> by the GCL developer. Can you now get to the same stage
> with 2.5 that you were at with 2.4? If so, maybe I should
> refresh the stuff I am working with from your most recent
> source.

I'm not working on 2.5 at the moment. The issue is that the in-package
change requires changes to the sources and I'm trying to get the world
to work with minimal source changes. Once that is working and stable
I'll look at 2.5. I have sent changes to Camm in the past and he has
made corrections so when we get to 2.5 I'm sure the process will go
smoothly. The old definition of common lisp and the new definition are
fairly close. Since I wrote or rewrote most of the common lisp code
and I code using a very simple subset I'm not anticipating a lot of work
to change to 2.5. However, it's not at the top of the todo list yet.
You're welcome to give it a try and I'm willing to accept patches.

> The other reason is that Tim's priorities are focused on
> improving the documentation for the whole system by using
> the combined source code+documentation techniques promoted
> by Knuth in his WEB methodology (as extended and simplified
> in a tool called noweb). But if you are adventuresome and
> anxious to get started, you might want to try to play with
> the original code. If so, you should ask Tim (nicely) if
> he pass it on to you since I don't think it is still in
> his cvs.

Actually, if you look in int/interp, int/boot, int/algebra, (e.g
the int subdirectory) you will find the original sources. The first
step in the documentation goal was to take the original code, wrap
it in noweb, tangle the noweb form and get the original code back
(in the int directory). Anywhere that doesn't happen can be considered
a bug (well, modulo the fact that I've been experiementing with future
changes. but these should be confined to a few files and should not
change the semantics of the code). You could just mapcar the tangle
function over a list of the .pamphlet files and get the original 
sources back.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]