freenode/#lisp - IRC Chatlog
Search
2:47:11
pjb
emacs packages are some kind of (CL) system. There's nothing like CL packages in emacs lisp. (there are obarray which are some low-level stuff that could be used to implement CL packages in emacs lisp, if there was hooks in the reader available).
2:54:02
edgar-rft
My problem is more that I cannot find any documentation about a -*- Package: foo -*- file vaiable. Neither in the Emacs manuals nor in the Slime manual. I just simply have no idea where this variable comes from.
2:58:32
pjb
edgar-rft: slime checks for in-package forms to read and evaluate things in the right package. Without an in-package, I guess it will fall back to the package name bond to package.
3:00:25
edgar-rft
pjb: That's how Common Lisp handles packages, what has nothing to do at all with file local Emacs variables.
3:07:45
devon
pjb, edgar-rft: Emacs *should* downcase all file-local variables but stupidly does it only for those variables where someone complained.
3:09:23
devon
pjb, edgar-rft: Another wheel to re-invent, [rolls eyes] but it beats editing thousands of files starting with -*- base: 10; package: foo; readtable: CL -*-
6:43:40
flip214
when using the access library, can I tell it to do NTHCAR? (access:accesses ...) gives me a list, but with 0 as additional path specifier I only get NIL.
8:02:50
shka__
is coercing adjustable array of characters to simple-string guaranteed to work on a standard CL implementation?
8:48:18
beach
asdf_asdf_asdf: I am reading your questions in the channel logs, and I don't quite understand why you program in Common Lisp, given that you seem to want to treat it as just another language in the C family, where you can take the address of variables, and manipulate pointers explicitly.
8:48:18
beach
I think you would be much better off using a language in that family, rather than trying to twist Common Lisp into something it really is not in the first place.
8:49:53
beach
Perhaps you are under the impression that Common Lisp is just another language in the same family, only with a different syntax. That is not the case. It is fundamentally different with automatic memory management and uniform reference semantics.
8:52:11
beach
Well, I am afraid that asdf_asdf_asdf is wasting time because of a fundamental misunderstanding about what Common Lisp is.
8:52:45
beach
And I don't understand this desire of simultaneously using Common Lisp and treating is at something it is not.