Slime/abcl version compatibility

[Alan Ruttenberg]

Rather than cluttering up the newer version what do you think of having
slime include the older version and have the swank loader conditionally
load old or new depending on the ABCL version?

There is also slime maintenance cost associated with having it be backward
compatible.

An alternative is to check in a compatible version of slime as part of each
ABCL release. This requires a bit of thought about managing the case where
someone wants to run multiple different lisp implementations in the same
emacs, thought I'm.not sure how prevalent this is.

Alan





On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 10:53 AM Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg at gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 7:19 AM, Mark Evenson <evenson at panix.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 1/3/17 20:46, Alan Ruttenberg wrote:
>
>
> > On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 6:57 AM, Mark Evenson <evenson at panix.com> wrote:
>
>
> >
>
>
> >>
>
>
> >>
>
>
> >> On 1/3/17 00:35, Alan Ruttenberg wrote:
>
>
> >>> Well, I've gone and made an attempt at a "less leaky"  version. (It
>
>
> >> became
>
>
> >>> an obsession :( )
>
>
> >>
>
>
> >>
>
>
> >> Very cool. I need to find some cycles to start working through your
> code.
>
>
> >>
>
>
> >> One question:  do you expect version of SLIME categorically fail
>
>
> >> completely with previous ABCL versions (i.e. those without
>
>
> >> ABCL-INTROSPECT)?  Or were your able to special-case the new features in
>
>
> >> swank-abcl.lisp?
>
>
>
>
>
> […]
>
>
>
>
>
> > But is it worth it, given that it will require the new version of ABCL
> for
>
>
> > source-location?
>
>
>
>
>
> I will incur significant "support" cost if SLIME stops working for
>
>
> existing users, so I need to avoid that scenario if at all possible.
>
>
> I'll look into it.
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.common-lisp.net/pipermail/armedbear-devel/attachments/20170104/fbd2539f/attachment-0001.html>