Re: Next browser finally on master!

[Ricardo Wurmus <rekado@elephly.net>]

Pierre Neidhardt <mail@ambrevar.xyz> writes:

> - As far as I understand, the compiler *does* change the resulting
> binary, thus the resulting REPL experience will be different, because
> all Lisps are different beyond the ANSI standard and other undefined
> behaviour.  In other words, connecting via SLIME to ccl-next or
> sbcl-next would result in a different environment.

Sure.  I wouldn’t expect people who use ECL to be able to load libraries
that were built with SBCL.

>> That these packages can *also* be used as libraries does not mean that the
>> packages should have names with the “sbcl-” or “cl-” or “other-lisp-” prefix.
>
> That would not be consistent with the Lisp library naming scheme then.
> And it raises the question as to why we have bothered with the sbcl- and
> ecl- prefixes so far.

The naming scheme applies to packages that are primarily used as
libraries.  A package “foo” that is written in Python and also provides
modules that can be imported in an interactive Python session will not
be named “python-foo” when it is primarily used on its own.

--
Ricardo