Thanks Bill for posting such detailed Clojure+SLIME setup instructions
on your blog! :-D
One thing that tripped me up was that my .emacs was loading a custom
SLIME (since I use the .emacs for Emacs 21 as well as Emacs 22, and
Emacs 21 does not come with SLIME by default). The custom SLIME was
Hi Bill,
it seems I found the tick with swank-clojure, slime and emacs.
Swank/clojure works only if the user is not root. (Or so it seems on
my linux setup)
Following your instructions on http://bc.tech.coop/blog/081023.html
if the user is root, swank-clojure spawns a server listening on a
given
My apologies,
found the error. It was the linux setup.
The portmap daemon was interfering with the swank server.
If the portmap is stopped, everything works fine.
Running everything as a root?
I like to live on the edge of a cliff, gives me a nice buzz high ;-)
You don`t?
Bye,
mosi
On Dec 12,
Hi Bill,
thank you for helping the beginners like me with the setup of emacs,
slime and clojure.
I tried first the official method described elsewhere on this forum -
ubuntu linux instructions.
Unsuccessful.
Following your instructions, the same issue, my linux emacs22 gets to
this point:
On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 4:29 PM, mosi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
thank you for helping the beginners like me with the setup of emacs,
slime and clojure.
I tried first the official method described elsewhere on this forum -
ubuntu linux instructions.
Unsuccessful.
Following your instructions,
2008/11/21 Boris Schmid [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nice!. As a newbie, I found lispbox one of the easiest ways to set up
a lisp + emacs on windows, so I think a clojurebox will be a good
thing for people.
(although currently I'm just using ssh to get to my work and emacs -nw
from there.)
I concur
I would find it useful. Given the number of posts on this group
concerning editor setups, I'd say that a lot of others would as well.
Mike
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Clojure group.
To post to
The result so far packs all of the above features in a 46MB installer. I'm
willing to pursue finishing it (and possibly making it smaller) if it would
be useful to others and if I can find a place to put it up.
Great! I look forward to use it!
On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 7:39 AM, Rich Hickey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm sure a lot of people will appreciate this, thanks, although I have
to admit to a pang of sadness that tiny Clojure comes in a box 100x
its size :(
I would hate to discourage this in any way (or let my vim roots show
On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 07:57:16 -0500
Chouser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 7:39 AM, Rich Hickey [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I'm sure a lot of people will appreciate this, thanks, although I
have to admit to a pang of sadness that tiny Clojure comes in a box
100x its
On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 7:57 AM, Chouser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 7:39 AM, Rich Hickey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm sure a lot of people will appreciate this, thanks, although I have
to admit to a pang of sadness that tiny Clojure comes in a box 100x
its size :(
On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 8:27 AM, Daniel Renfer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
perhaps what we need is a clojure-in-a-box solution. We could create a
package containing a version of clojure, emacs, slime, swank-clojure,
clojure-mode, and clojure-contrib. This could be as simple as a zip
file, but
Nice!. As a newbie, I found lispbox one of the easiest ways to set up
a lisp + emacs on windows, so I think a clojurebox will be a good
thing for people.
(although currently I'm just using ssh to get to my work and emacs -nw
from there.)
On 21 nov, 01:49, Shawn Hoover [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Ralph,
In some sense you can think of a cached stable install of some set of
developer tools as a performance optimization. In this case, the
performance being optimized is the developer's performance installing
a tool set.
Like any performance optimization, it should not be made
On Nov 18, 1:46 am, Cosmin Stejerean [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What kind of bugs are acceptable for the
purpose of a known good combination? Is slime starting up sufficient?
It's a whole lot better than slime *not* starting up. Again, context:
Getting Started.
BTW, it's this sort of
On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 9:42 AM, Raffael Cavallaro
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Nov 18, 1:46 am, Cosmin Stejerean [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What kind of bugs are acceptable for the
purpose of a known good combination? Is slime starting up sufficient?
It's a whole lot better than slime
On Nov 18, 2008, at 9:42 AM, Raffael Cavallaro [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Nov 18, 1:46 am, Cosmin Stejerean [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What kind of bugs are acceptable for the
purpose of a known good combination? Is slime starting up sufficient?
It's a whole lot better than slime
On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 6:42 AM, Raffael Cavallaro
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Nov 18, 1:46 am, Cosmin Stejerean [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What kind of bugs are acceptable for the
purpose of a known good combination? Is slime starting up sufficient?
It's a whole lot better than slime *not*
Hi Raffael,
On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 4:21 PM, Raffael Cavallaro
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As the mention of Aquamacs in the title suggests, I'm on Mac OS X.
I've read Bill Clementson's Blog on setting up clojure, and I'm not
exactly a neophyte - I've been using slime with sbcl, openmcl, and
On Nov 17, 8:43 pm, Bill Clementson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Rather than ask someone to assemble a package and post it for you, it
is usually nicer (and a better learning experience) if you list
exactly what you did, and post the minimal config scripts that you the
tried out and which
20 matches
Mail list logo
