Subject: Re: merge-pathnames From: Erik Naggum <email@example.com> Date: 1998/04/21 Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp Message-ID: <firstname.lastname@example.org> * Bruno Haible | CLISP implements #P since version 1997-05-03. that's good. | If you have problems building clisp on some particular platform, and want | these problems resolved, a constructive approach would be to submit a | report to <email@example.com>. This way the problems have a real | chance to be fixed. support for sun-sparc-sunos4.1.3 has obviously been scuttled to support a myriad weird things in Linux. attempts to get support have failed. my last attempt (three months ago) was to build on both my SPARCstation and an Intel running Solaris 2.5. both failed with an _astonishing_ amount of crud, most of it evidence of sloppy coding in that weird "D" language of yours, which, to my untrained eyes, only appear to be a nasty way of saying you don't like /* and */ in C. I don't like gratuitous changes like that, so I am obviously just as free to ignore CLISP and warn people against it as you are against the Common Lisp and C that other people would like to use. I'm sorry, but I don't find _your_ unconstructive approach to wasting my time worth it, especially when I can spend my time so much more constructively elsewhere. maybe something to consider? (BTW, something of the same nature has happened to GCL. I got my hands on KCL back in 1987, but the C code was obviously written by someone who had never seen anybody else's C code, just like yours, and although it has now become GCL (via AKCL), it is still _incredibly_ obtuse and just as buggy. I guess the morale is: if you want people to be benevolent to you, at least don't start off by doing something boneheadedly different just for the heck of it.) #:Erik -- Abort, Retry, or Upgrade?