Re: [Axiom-developer] clisp and sbcl

[Gabriel Dos Reis]

On Mon, 28 May 2007, Waldek Hebisch wrote:

| 
| > On Mon, 28 May 2007, Waldek Hebisch wrote:
| > 
| > | It looks for me that replacing SETQ by DEFPARAMETER defeats much of the
| > | purpose of DEFPARAMETER/DEFVAR: we silence _all_ warnings about 
assignments
| > | to undefined variables, loosing them also when variable name is
| > | spelled incorrectly.
| > 
| > The replacement was for variable definitions at top level, NOT every use
| > of SETQ.  All of those should have been DEFPARAMETERs in the first place.
| > If you see multiple SETQ at toplevel for the same variable, that is a 
| > logical bug, and is independent of whether you use SETQ or DEFPARAMTER.
| > 
| 
| OK, for each variable used in multiple file we should have one
| unintialized DEFVAR in some "header" file and SETQ at place of
| definition.

We should be able to generate the equivalent of "header" file, in
form of declarations to be loaded in other files.  
We know that in Boot we can put types as part of the variable definition,
e.g. 

   $sawParenthesizedParams : Boolean := false

then, we should be able to convince bootsys to generate a "header" file
to be included by others in the form SPECIAL and TYPE declarations.

I have also convinced bootsys to accept function definitions with
specification of the parameter types and return types.  We should also be able
to convince it to generate the corresponding proclamation information.
That is part of the module experiment I'm conducting on gdr-sandbox.

For the moment, I translate "import"s as REQUIREs.

[...]

| cases when noweb chunks may improve readability).  Another
| possibility is to maintain a separate file with uninitialised
| DEFVARs (something like C file with extern declarations).

Yes; I would rather automate that process through bootsys for example.
The automation will also takes care of the differences between CLISP, SBCL 
and GCL, etc.

-- Gaby