[slime-devel] slime repl AND slime-fancy vs. XEmacs
Mark H. David
mhd at yv.org
Mon Nov 16 14:00:25 UTC 2009
By "in charge", I include both making defaults and deciding what the doc
The approach described -- having REPL not be the default mode of
operation -- is not in and of itself broken.
It's just that it's not in synch with the doc. What about the doc? It
The buffer |*inferior-lisp*| contains the Lisp process's own top-level.
This direct access to Lisp is useful for troubleshooting, and some
degree of SLIME integration is available using the
|inferior-slime-mode|. However, in normal use we recommend using the
fully-integrated SLIME REPL and ignoring the |*inferior-lisp*| buffer.
With a Lisp implementation that can be started from the command-line,
installation just requires a few lines in your .emacs:
(setq inferior-lisp-program "/opt/sbcl/bin/sbcl") ; your Lisp system
(add-to-list 'load-path "~/hacking/lisp/slime/") ; your SLIME
So, can the doc be fixed now?
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [slime-devel] slime repl AND slime-fancy vs. XEmacs
From: Helmut Eller <heller at common-lisp.net>
To: slime-devel at common-lisp.net
Date: Mon Nov 16 2009 01:49:42 GMT-0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
> * Mark H. David [2009-11-16 06:43+0100] writes:
>> Things are broken: either the doc is wrong or the defaults are wrong.Â
>> Is there anyone in charge who's not in favor of fixing that?
> I'm in charge and I make the defaults.
> There is Slime and there are contribs. I care about Slime. Contribs are
> made and maintained my, well, contributors. I don't want the repl to be
> part of Slime because Slime is much easier to maintain without repl.
> Slime is not a commercial product with customers where developers have
> to do whatever paying users want. Neither am I trying to sell Slime.
> If you don't like it the way it is use something else.
> slime-devel site list
> slime-devel at common-lisp.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the slime-devel