Re: LISA



On Mar 9, 6:32 pm, dstein64 <DStei...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mar 9, 7:33 am, Pascal Bourguignon <p...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Depends.  Normally, they go in the same directory as the source file,
but asdf may optionally be directed to store them in a
per-implementation directory, may be far away from the source file.
Possibly in ~/.sbcl/.

If the .fasl files are left near the sources,

  find lisa-2.3/ -name \*.fasl -exec rm {} \;

should remove them, assuming you've got lisa sources in the lisa-2.3/
directory.

I believe that things work differently on my computer, as I installed
my LISP implementations using Aptitude in Ubuntu Linux. It seems like
the implementations (SBCL, CMUCL, and CLISP) all rely on something
called common-lisp-controller to manage different systems. I think
that at this point I am going to remove all these implementations, and
start from scratch. By this I mean that I will just use SBCL and I
will compile it rather than install it from the Debian Repositories. I
feel that it will be easier to understand and control its operation
this way.

Does anyone have any other suggestions? It seems that common-lisp-
controller is interfering with the standard operation of ASDF. Is
there any site that you know of (besides this one) that explains ASDF
entirely? Does it work differently for different versions of LISP?
Thanks.

I'm using slime + sbcl on ubuntu x86 and after setting up slime with
sbcl that I manully installed from precompiled binaries I didn't seen
any problems. This tutorial covers everything
http://common-lisp.net/project/asdf-install/tutorial/index.html
Currently I don't have access to my machine but I think keeps them
into the same folders with source files. Slime is nifty enviroment but
you need some time to get use to it. You may watch Marco Baringer
video for inspiration. If you're really short with time try allegro
express, free easy to install or lw personal , free not very easy to
install, though beware they're heap limited.

cheers
Slobodan

.