Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!bb3.andrew.cmu.edu!newsfeed.pitt.edu!gatech!swrinde!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!oleane!in2p3.fr!swidir.switch.ch!scsing.switch.ch!news.dfn.de!news.dkrz.de!news.rrz.uni-hamburg.de!news.Hanse.DE!wavehh.hanse.de!cracauer
From: cracauer@wavehh.hanse.de (Martin Cracauer)
Subject: Re: Common Lisp, where ?
Message-ID: <1996Apr13.134122.29830@wavehh.hanse.de>
Organization: BSD User Group Hamburg
References: <4jro45$4b9@marti.uji.es> <4kcit8$jor@reader2.ix.netcom.com> <s08k9zmaajy.fsf@lox.ICSI.Berkeley.EDU> <829305819snz@wildcard.demon.co.uk>
Distribution: inet
Date: Sat, 13 Apr 96 13:41:22 GMT
Lines: 56

Cyber Surfer <cyber_surfer@wildcard.demon.co.uk> writes:

>In article <s08k9zmaajy.fsf@lox.ICSI.Berkeley.EDU>
>           marcoxa@lox.icsi.berkeley.edu "Marco Antoniotti" writes:

>> Is it true that CMUCL uses Tcl/Tk under Windows?
>> 
>> It'd be a rather good thing.

>Yes, it would, but it would be even better if there was native Windows
>support. You could, for example use Tcl/Tk on an NT machine, while
>running CMUCL on a Unix machine. I don't know if CMUCL is available
>for NT itself, but Tcl/Tk certain is - you can get it on the InfoMagic
>Tcl/Tk CD-ROM.

As far as I know, the MS-Windows and X11 Tcl/Tk versions are quite
similar on the surface, that means, the Tcl interface is. The binding
interface to use Tk from other languages is more different.

Anyway, X11 Servers (and X11 libs) are quite common on Windows already
and it is only a question of time until a free implementation is
availiable, so you might have a MS-Windows binary with Unix-Tk built in.

>If a Win32 binary CMUCL is available that will run under Windows NT,
>please let me know, so I can use it. As far as I'm aware, it only runs
>under Unix. Still, if NT can run a Unix binary, that would do nearly

CMUCL on Windows. Hm. 

First of all, a port would probably not use the Posix interface. The
quality of NT's posix interface seems not to be sufficient and using
the Posix interface means that you can't use any Win32 functions
anymore.

So a port would probably a Win32 port and that would run on Windows 95
as well as on Windows NT ("well" = as well as Windows may run programs
well :-)

>as well - it would be missing all the Win32 features that I'm looking
>for, but it should still run some code that ACL for Windows can't.

A port using the posix interface would prevent you from using Win32
functions. However, I think it would be a Win32 port anyway and from
that point on using Win32 function would mean nothing more than to
write an alien function interface.

To avoid misunderstandings: *I* will not even try to. I have enough
way to go to understand CMUCL well enough to do any (Unix) port at
all and Windows is not exactly what I want to tangle with (Solaris x86
maybe).

Martin
-- 
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Martin Cracauer <cracauer@wavehh.hanse.de>  -  BSD User Group Hamburg
BSD, Lisp and other programming info http://www.bik-gmbh.de/~cracauer
