Le samedi 07 octobre 2006 à 20:36 +0200, Waldek Hebisch a écrit : > Vanuxem Grégory wrote: [...] > > Le samedi 07 octobre 2006 ? 16:41 +0200, Waldek Hebisch a écrit : > > > When you speak about "a lot of implications" do you mean that probe-file > > > is used in many places or that it is used in may different ways? In the > > > first case a wrapper called axiom-probe-file would be a perfect solution. > > > > I meant they are used in many places and we will need, I think, to check > > the use of probe-file and delete-file everywhere (for example `egrep -ri > > 'probe_?-file' src/interp/ |wc -l` returns 84 (in Gold)) . > > > > Yes, I think too that a wrapper function/macro would be a good idea > > thought I don't think it will have to be used everywhere. This leads to > > other questions such that will we use the function directoryp, which is > > a wrapper to a C functions defined in src/lib/cfuns-c.c.pamphlet, in > > this wrapper? A new function has been added to the system package of > > GCL, namely 'stat', so will we rewrite a full lisp directoryp function > > and remove this C function from Axiom? Will this wrapper (axiom-probe| > > delete-file) use stat or directoryp etc, etc... > > > > I think that we should use wrapper "everywhere" -- the semantics of > probe-file looks insane on Unix-like systems (including Windows and > Mac OSX). ATM wrapper should use directoryp, later we can change > it to accomodate other Lisps. I did not look deeply into the problem, > but what I wrote is just common sense: we want to push down and > encapsulate system specific details.
This is exactly why I think this issue need to be discussed. Tim, Gaby and any others can you share your point of view? Greg _______________________________________________ Axiom-developer mailing list Axiom-developer@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/axiom-developer
