Search
5:11:51
beach
slyrus: That warning would be good to remove. But I don't have any idea about how to do it.
13:40:44
slyrus
wow. is there a good reason why there's a half-baked MOP implementation in presentations.lisp?
13:42:29
jackdaniel
maybe there wasn't one in place when the module was created?
13:47:20
nyef`
... Maybe it was just removed from the oven too soon?
13:47:42
slyrus
oleo: OK, maybe I'm overstating the case a bit, but it seems like there's a lot of hair there that needn't exist
13:52:21
oleo
no idea, i haven't looked there yet, is it maybe because they don't want to rely on changing code ?
13:53:19
nyef`
It could be an ersatz compatibility layer, or some magic to do with the semantics of presentation types?
13:53:39
nyef`
ACTION hasn't bothered looking at the code yet.
14:37:36
beach
Isn't that stuff made obsolete by the recent work by jackdaniel.
14:37:52
beach
... using CLOSER-MOP instead?
14:40:52
oleo
even closer-mop is just an approximation.....
14:41:25
oleo
if it was already around or not at the time mcclim was written, i doyn't noyy
14:46:00
oleo
an approximation to "a mop for all"
14:46:30
oleo
crossing implementation differences etc....
14:53:20
jackdaniel
closer-mop is a portability layer
14:53:36
jackdaniel
afaik MOP implementation in SBCL is just fine, not approximation
14:53:54
jackdaniel
same goes for CCL, ECL and other major implementations