C Y writes: > Does anybody else think it would be a good idea to get a c-l.net > project set up for CLX? The current situation seems to be telent-clx > being the most modern CLX available and the portable-clx mail list > being around for coordinating patches, but that list hasn't seen much > traffic for some months.
I think it would be a good idea to create a cl.net project for CLX, but I think Dan Barlow and the other CLX maintainers should have their say first. > FWIW, I'm working on getting a LaTeX version of the CLX manual, both > because I need to read it and to hopefully produce a "central" version > to update in the future. I started to convert Gilbert's SGML version > into LaTeX more or less manually and that's going fairly well, but does > anybody know if the texinfo version in the telent-clx tarball is as new > or newer? There are automatic texinfo->LaTeX tools I believe, and that > might make life easier. I suspect there is some very recent Texinfo version out there. The reason for that is that many of us think that Texinfo is preferable to LaTeX when it comes to documentation like this. Personally, I would like to go the other way with the McCLIM documentation, and, although Texinfo is by no means perfect, I think it is the best thing we have at the moment. For that reason, I think you might want to reconsider turning it into a LaTeX version, which would then invariably get out of sync with the Texinfo version, and instead you might want to make sure there is a recent Texinfo version available. -- Robert Strandh --------------------------------------------------------------------- Greenspun's Tenth Rule of Programming: any sufficiently complicated C or Fortran program contains an ad hoc informally-specified bug-ridden slow implementation of half of Common Lisp. --------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ Gardeners mailing list [email protected] http://www.lispniks.com/mailman/listinfo/gardeners
