[Ecls-list] Latest changes & request for comments

[Gabriel Dos Reis]

On Mon, May 18, 2009 at 2:49 AM, Juan Jose Garcia-Ripoll
<juanjose.garciaripoll at googlemail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, May 17, 2009 at 9:33 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis
> <gdr at integrable-solutions.net> wrote:
>> I just realized something that may explain our differing views.
>> It appears to me that you seem to believe that ECL is required to
>> load the binary file with a user-supplied extension, previously
>> produced by COMPILE-FILE with non-NIL :OUTPUT-FILE.
>
> But then Gabriel I do not get it. Why do you want COMPILE-FILE to
> respect the user extension if the file is not going to be loadable.

But you do not know by the time you produced the file that
it is going to be loaded or not going to be loaded.  By the time
it is loaded it may have been renamed with just the right extension
for ECL.

> COMPILE-FILE, LOAD, COMPILE-FILE-PATHNAME are all specified to be
> consistent among each other.

There is no inconsistency in the proposal -- rather, it follows the
spec and it turns out to be consistent with four other free implementations.