[gambit-list] slime (swank) and gambit

Marc Feeley feeley at iro.umontreal.ca
Fri Dec 9 08:50:16 EST 2011

On 2011-12-09, at 2:07 AM, Attila Lendvai wrote:

>> Alternatively (but harder I think), abstract the operations you
>> need from the Scheme system, and have the common swank
>> code call into the system specific implementation of the interface.
> i don't think it would be harder.

The swank protocol is the primary interface that each Scheme/Lisp system must implement.  So I'm not sure how much can be gained by a different interface.  That's why I say it is hard (i.e. to come up with a lower-level interface that is different from swank, is powerful enough to implement swank, and allows for more code sharing between swank implementations).

> this is how the official slime
> codebase is organized, and there are major chunks of code that are
> shared (e.g. the entire inspector). and this kind of separation
> (common stuff + one file for each CL backend) is also easier to
> understand than a code full of cond-expand (IMHO).

I totally agree, given the volume of different code (which will be substantial, i.e. in the high hundreds of lines of code if not more).


More information about the Gambit-list mailing list