I noticed the require function is obsolete (it does not work in my
implementation, ACL), but I have some code from a book that uses it
quite a bit. If I try "load" it tends to gives lots of warnings saying
that it is reloading the same stuff over and over. Is there a better
substitution of require than load?
--
Richard Giuly
(remove animal from email address)
Richard James Panturis Giuly <·········@bigfoot.com> writes:
> I noticed the require function is obsolete (it does not work in my
> implementation, ACL), but I have some code from a book that uses it
> quite a bit. If I try "load" it tends to gives lots of warnings
> saying that it is reloading the same stuff over and over. Is there a
> better substitution of require than load?
require ends up being useful for loading extra modules provided by an
implementation. For example, in LispWorks, you might say something
like:
(require "comm")
and their implementation of Common Lisp loads the networking
extensions not specified by the ANSI CL standard.
Other implementations use symbols to name the modules. e.g. in ACL:
(require :clx)
would load in the :xlib package, etc. I find it to be a handy system
for implementations. Every language environment seems to have
something of this nature, though I think if you want to do the right
thing for _your_ stuff, use defsystem. Then, you can load systems,
compile them, etc. Also, in case you care, there are defsystem
implementations that work on just about every ANSI CL out there, and
are platform-independent for the most part.
dave
David Bakhash <·····@alum.mit.edu> writes:
> require ends up being useful for loading extra modules provided by an
> implementation. For example, in LispWorks, you might say something
> like:
>
> (require "comm")
>
> and their implementation of Common Lisp loads the networking
> extensions not specified by the ANSI CL standard.
>
> Other implementations use symbols to name the modules. e.g. in ACL:
>
> (require :clx)
>
> would load in the :xlib package, etc.
LispWorks can use symbols too but you have to say
(require :|comm|)
How does ACL behave in its different case modes?
<g,d&r>
--
Lieven Marchand <···@wyrd.be>
Gla�r ok reifr skyli gumna hverr, unz sinn b��r bana.
Erik Naggum <····@naggum.net> writes:
> * David Bakhash <·····@alum.mit.edu>
> > Other implementations use symbols to name the modules.
>
> Nope. The variable *modules*, off of which require and provide operate,
> is defined to contain a list of strings. require and provide accept
> string designators.
thanks for the clarification. I never thought to try what Lieven
said.
take care,
dave
Erik Naggum <····@naggum.net> writes:
> * David Bakhash <·····@alum.mit.edu>
> > thanks for the clarification. I never thought to try what Lieven said.
>
> I highly recommend reading the standard over "trying things out" that are
> specified therein. Some knowledge should just not be empirical.
But if people read the standard *before* beginning the implementation,
things might just work correctly the *first* time, and even
interoperate reliably without kludge upon kludge. *Then* where would
be? Millions of incompetent `programmers' would be out of work!
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----