Pierre Neidhardt <m...@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
