On 12/17/05, Tolstoy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > What I'd like to see is some sort of Lisp Standard Library (lsl?) > containing a full suite of packages most of us use in most of our jobs > (whether writing in common lisp or not).
I've been thinking alot about this over the last few years, I think it's a good idea. > What do you all think? Instead of releasing, versioning and otherwise maintaining any actual code I think it would be great if the "standard library" (unfortunate name, perhaps) could be a set of (specific versions of) libraries which are known to work together. If there are any problems, patches should migrate upstream so there's no real code maintenance of the libraries. This set could be expressed as an ASDF system which depended on all the libraries; the net result of which would be that asdf-install and (require 'standard-lib) would all work just they way you would expect them but still we are not maintaining any actual code. Using the abovementioned approach does however mean that all these systems' code would be loaded into your image whether you used them or not. Perhaps you were just interested in split-sequence but now you have megabytes of other code loaded. For casual programming I wouldn't mind this but for professional work this would be unacceptable for some. So, in addition to the ASDF (and probably mk:defsystem and whatever the next big thing happens to be), one might perhaps require a secondary mechanism for expressing dependencies. I personally would be happy to simply download the "standard library" and have my code depend on individual packages (ie no secondary mechanism would be necessary) but others might not agree. Thoughts? Erik. _______________________________________________ Gardeners mailing list [email protected] http://www.lispniks.com/mailman/listinfo/gardeners
