[slime-devel] slime repl AND slime-fancy vs. XEmacs

Mark H. David mhd at yv.org
Tue Nov 17 08:09:45 UTC 2009

I never really heard of anyone intentionally running SLIME without 
running the
REPL.  I thought the REPL was the essence of using SLIME.  At least, I think
it's the most common way people run SLIME.  If I'm at all close to right,
I would still like to see it there on that main installation doc page. 
Couldn't it shown as an example along with explaining
that it's a "contrib", but it's the most commonly used one, and then sending
them off to the contrib doc for extra information?  That's what I'd like 
to see.

Anyhow, I think the changes as you have them are an improvement, as step
in the right direction.



-------- Original Message  --------
Subject: Re: [slime-devel] slime repl AND slime-fancy vs. XEmacs
From: Madhu <enometh at meer.net>
To: slime-devel at common-lisp.net
Date: Mon Nov 16 2009 23:07:20 GMT-0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
> * "Mark H. David" <4B015AF9.8010705 at yv.org> :
> Wrote on Mon, 16 Nov 2009 09:00:25 -0500:
> | By "in charge", I include both making defaults and deciding what the
> | doc says.  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 says
> The problem is that the doc contains the correct information, though it
> maybe confusing and not apparent unless you put things together.  (I'm
> looking at the doc/slime.texi for this mail, not the website:)
> |
> | here:
> |
> | http://common-lisp.net/project/slime/doc/html/Inferior_002dlisp.html#Inferior_002dlisp
> |
> | 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.
> `REPL' is a hyperlink that points to the REPL subnode (under
> `Contributed Packages'. REP node indicates how the REPL is to be
> invoked, it says:
> 	To load the REPL call `(slime-setup '(slime-repl))' in your
> 	`.emacs'.
> Also The `Loading Contribs' subnode `Contributed Packages' shows how 
> packages are loaded.
> | and here:
> |
> | http://common-lisp.net/project/slime/doc/html/Installation.html#Installation
> |
> | 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 directory
> |      (require 'slime)
> |      (slime-setup)
> Immediately after that, it says
> 	This is the minimal configuration with the fewest frills.  If
> 	the basic setup is working, you can try additional modules
> 	(*note Loading Contribs::).
> Again with a link to the `Loading Contribs' Node.
> So mentioning (slime-setup '(slime-repl)) here would not be appropriate
> at all.  Besides IMHO the REPL has long-standing unfixed bugs I'm not
> sure it should be recommended outright.
> | So, can the doc be fixed now?
> How would you like it to be fixed?  What do you think would be least
> confusing or appropriate?  Would you be happy with this?
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> slime-devel site list
> slime-devel at common-lisp.net
> http://common-lisp.net/mailman/listinfo/slime-devel

More information about the slime-devel mailing list