Pre-submission discussion: code walking

[Daniel Kochmański]

Regarding the feedback, here are some notes I had when I've started
writing a test suite before starting implementing cltl2 in ECL, maybe
you'll find some of them useful. I plan to tackle this problem again
after upcoming 16.2.0 release (with some refactor of the compiler
interfces). I'll definetely look into the walkability document before
doing so.

http://ix.io/1Hbo

On that note: I try to implement some clarifications in ECL. What would
be useful is to have all extensions which can't be implemented as a
user library in a common package (i.e CDR vs CDR-USER). I think this is
not covered in any CDR (and having a feature that CDR-X is implemented
doesn't give me much if I don't know in which package should I seek the
new symbol).

Best regards,
Daniel

On Thu, 2019-04-25 at 16:47 +0200, Michael Raskin wrote:
>                 Hello.
>         I want to try to do something about portability of
> universally
> present features, given that stndard revisions are extremely
> unlikely,
> and CDR process seems to be the best way to obtain a stable ID for
> some 
> version of description.
> 
>         As automatic code processing is a large part of Common Lisp 
> identity as it is presented, and there is a small and easy to define 
> chunk of functionality that is missing, I am preparing a CDR on
> portable
> code walking support.
> 
>         Before I formally submit a CDR proposal, I want to try to get
> some feedback. The current version of the writeup I have is at:
> https://gitlab.common-lisp.net/mraskin/cdr-walkability/blob/master/walkability.txt
> 
>         Please comment on that proposal, here or via issues or maybe
> even merge requests. I will announce the link to the discussion in
> the
> ELS mailing list (as ELS conference seems to be the closest 
> approximation to community discussion we have).
> 
>         I considered including Trucler API as an option, but
> currently
> I doubt I am able to do it well: mixing a coherent API with multiple 
> optional additions that are useful even as single functions is a
> harder
> task. I want to start somewhere.
> 
>         Separately, if someone has some proposals on how to make CDR
> process used more — or matter more, please share. Probably on cdr-
> devel
> https://mailman.common-lisp.net/listinfo/cdr-devel
> 
>         Thank you, goodbye
> Michael Raskin
> 
> 
> 
>