[Ecls-list] *features* and CDR

Juan Jose Garcia-Ripoll juanjose.garciaripoll at googlemail.com
Fri Aug 19 10:12:34 UTC 2011

On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 11:49 AM, Didier Verna <didier at lrde.epita.fr> wrote:

> Juan Jose Garcia-Ripoll <juanjose.garciaripoll at googlemail.com> wrote:
> > I have been reading the CDR documents and none of them seems to
> > mandate the inclusion of some feature to signal the presence of a CDR
> > in an implementation. *features* right now is quite populated and I
> > would not want to fill it with further names that may collide with
> > other users's. Does anybody have a strong opinion or is better
> > informed than me in this respect?
>   We had a short discussion about this on the CDR mailing list when I
> issued the "File Local Variables" CDR. See:
> http://lists.common-lisp.net/pipermail/cdr-discuss/2011-April/thread.html

I see both things mentioned:

- Adding :CDRnn or :CDR-nn to *features*
- Making the symbols live in some package.

The first one is not agreed upon. Each one says a different name and a vague
reference to CDR recommending this does not lead to any document. This is

The second thing solves a different problem: conflicts among extensions. But
this is not our case. ECL's CDR symbols now live in EXT and do not conflict
with anything. I see, however, a potential need for packages to solve
clashes among versions, but this does not seem to be a problem with CDR
right now.

So we still have two problems (determining the existence of a CDR extension
or not, and using it through appropriate names) but no convention has been
mandated. What do other implementations do?


Instituto de Física Fundamental, CSIC
c/ Serrano, 113b, Madrid 28006 (Spain)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.common-lisp.net/pipermail/ecl-devel/attachments/20110819/398fc0d7/attachment.html>

More information about the ecl-devel mailing list