[cdr-discuss] CDR follow ups...

[Didier Verna]

Pascal Costanza wrote:

> (a) It is not easy to figure out which CL implementations implement
> which CDRs.
>
> (b) It is not easy to figure out which CDR is implemented in a running
> CL system.

And possibly (c): it is not easy to figure out which CDR should be
considered as an update for a previous one, hence rendering the previous
one obsolete. This situation may not have happened yet, but still...


> About (b): A suggestion was that CDRs could be represented as entries
> in *features* (so :cdr-1, :cdr-2, :cdr-3, etc.). This would be the
> most general form of providing something that can be tested, because
> it can even be tested at compile time. Does that make sense? Should
> this be written up as a CDR of its own?

  I think there was a thread about that here with more ideas, but I need
to check on that later (I'm still celebrating the eviction of
Nicolas-The-Little-Nervous :-).

-- 
Resistance is futile. You will be jazzimilated.

Scientific site:   http://www.lrde.epita.fr/~didier
Music (Jazz) site: http://www.didierverna.com