Pre-submission discussion: code walking

[Antoniotti Marco]

Hi

I looked at the proposal.

I agree it would be useful, but I have two concerns.


  *   The proposal requires the presence of a CDR-NN package. Such a proposal should be made separately.  FTTB if CDR-14 is used, only the CDR-NN feature should be provided.  I would be in favor of a new CDR stating that a CDR-XX nickname could be added to a package implementing a given feature.
  *   The proposal as is may not be portably implemented by a third party without resorting to implementation support which may or may not be there.  The problematic operators are WITH-PARENT-ENVIRONMENT and ENVIRONMENT-ENTRY-NAMES.  Do you see any way to provide it in a simple (read: non SBCL) way?

Finally, COPY-ENVIRONMENT may and LEXICAL-ENVIRONMENT also be problematic.

cheers

Marco Antoniotti





On Apr 25, 2019, at 16:47 , Michael Raskin <38a938c2 at rambler.ru<mailto:38a938c2 at rambler.ru>> 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





--
Marco Antoniotti, Associate Professor tel. +39 - 02 64 48 79 01
DISCo, Università Milano Bicocca U14 2043 http://bimib.disco.unimib.it
Viale Sarca 336
I-20126 Milan (MI) ITALY

Please check: http://cdac2019.lakecomoschool.org
Please check: http://troncopackage.org
Please check: https://www.frontiersin.org/research-topics/7394/network-bioscience

Please note that I am not checking my Spam-box anymore.
Please do not forward this email without asking me first (cum grano salis).





-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.common-lisp.net/pipermail/cdr-discuss/attachments/20190507/346cbf63/attachment.html>