From: Oleg
Subject: Debian + CMUCL + Hemlock
Date: 
Message-ID: <acvd53$87l$1@newsmaster.cc.columbia.edu>
Hi

I'm running Debian Woody and I have the following packages installed:
cmucl, cmucl-normal, cmucl-source (all version 3.0.9).

Apparently, cmucl-source replaces cmucl-hemlock, among others. However, I 
can not find it. I understand that hemlock is some sort of IDE to be used 
instead of Emacs, so it should be a binary. `auto-apt search hemlock` gives:

usr/share/common-lisp/systems/cmucl-hemlock.system      devel/cmucl-source
usr/share/common-lisp/source/cmucl-hemlock      devel/cmucl-source

Am I supposed to compile these somehow?

Thanks

Oleg

P.S. If you tell me that Emacs provides a better IDE, then I won't bother 
(but you will be contradicting the CMUCL man page)

From: Adam Warner
Subject: Re: Debian + CMUCL + Hemlock
Date: 
Message-ID: <acvp5u$sqqu4$1@ID-105510.news.dfncis.de>
On Tue, 28 May 2002 19:57:49 +1200, Oleg wrote:

> Hi
> 
> I'm running Debian Woody and I have the following packages installed:
> cmucl, cmucl-normal, cmucl-source (all version 3.0.9).
> 
> Apparently, cmucl-source replaces cmucl-hemlock, among others. However,
> I can not find it. I understand that hemlock is some sort of IDE to be
> used instead of Emacs, so it should be a binary. `auto-apt search
> hemlock` gives:
> 
> usr/share/common-lisp/systems/cmucl-hemlock.system devel/cmucl-source
> usr/share/common-lisp/source/cmucl-hemlock devel/cmucl-source
> 
> Am I supposed to compile these somehow?

I don't think it's supported as part of Woody. The last hemlock package
was in Potato. If you try and run it you get the error message:

   Error in function ED:
      Sorry, cannot find hemlock, please install and use ilisp.

To get this error message type lisp and then (ed) at the prompt. Remember
hemlock is a lisp application!

> P.S. If you tell me that Emacs provides a better IDE, then I won't
> bother (but you will be contradicting the CMUCL man page)

That man page was written "October 15, 1991" (look down the bottom!)

emacs+ilisp will provide a much better IDE. The only reason to use hemlock
would be if you were going to spend a long time hacking it to bring it up
to the level of emacs+ilisp.

Regards,
Adam
From: Oleg
Subject: IDE ( was: Re: Debian + CMUCL + Hemlock)
Date: 
Message-ID: <acvtk3$h69$1@newsmaster.cc.columbia.edu>
Adam Warner wrote:

Hello Adam,

>> P.S. If you tell me that Emacs provides a better IDE, then I won't
>> bother (but you will be contradicting the CMUCL man page)
> 
> That man page was written "October 15, 1991" (look down the bottom!)
> 
> emacs+ilisp will provide a much better IDE. The only reason to use hemlock
> would be if you were going to spend a long time hacking it to bring it up
> to the level of emacs+ilisp.

Speaking of Emacs, I can't figure out how to do M-C-x in lisp mode, i.e. 
evaluate an expression in a buffer that is not *inferior-lisp*.

I press x while holding both ESC and Ctrl. This gets a beep out of Emacs 
and KDE launches KTop. Not exactly what I want.

BTW, are there alternative IDEs? I usually use VIM for editing, and I'm not 
the biggest fan of Emacs and its IMO convoluted key combinations.

Thanks

Oleg
From: Andy
Subject: Re: IDE ( was: Re: Debian + CMUCL + Hemlock)
Date: 
Message-ID: <3CF37B9B.F0864346@smi.de>
Oleg wrote:
> 
> Speaking of Emacs, I can't figure out how to do M-C-x in lisp mode, i.e.
> evaluate an expression in a buffer that is not *inferior-lisp*.
Whats with Ctrl-X-E ? This evaluates the expression before the cursor in
Emacs.

> 
> I press x while holding both ESC and Ctrl. This gets a beep out of Emacs
> and KDE launches KTop. Not exactly what I want.
Use the KDE Controlcenter to bypass the Ctrl-ESC to emacs (The KDE
default is
to launch KTop)

> BTW, are there alternative IDEs? I usually use VIM for editing, and I'm not
> the biggest fan of Emacs and its IMO convoluted key combinations.
There is Jabberwokey. But i havn't tried it. I feel fine with XEmacs :-)

Best regards
AHz
From: Oleg
Subject: Re: IDE ( was: Re: Debian + CMUCL + Hemlock)
Date: 
Message-ID: <ad0l4n$1h3$1@newsmaster.cc.columbia.edu>
Andy wrote:

>> Speaking of Emacs, I can't figure out how to do M-C-x in lisp mode, i.e.
>> evaluate an expression in a buffer that is not inferior-lisp.
> Whats with Ctrl-X-E ? This evaluates the expression before the cursor in
> Emacs.

C-x-e works in Emacs running "run-lisp" mode, but not in XEmacs running 
"cmulisp" mode. XEmacs doesn't seem to have "run-lisp". Is there a 
different key combination in "cmulisp" mode than in "run-lisp" ?

Thanks

Oleg
From: Christopher Browne
Subject: Re: IDE ( was: Re: Debian + CMUCL + Hemlock)
Date: 
Message-ID: <m31ybwf0zr.fsf@chvatal.cbbrowne.com>
Oleg <············@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Andy wrote:
>
>>> Speaking of Emacs, I can't figure out how to do M-C-x in lisp mode, i.e.
>>> evaluate an expression in a buffer that is not inferior-lisp.
>> Whats with Ctrl-X-E ? This evaluates the expression before the cursor in
>> Emacs.
>
> C-x-e works in Emacs running "run-lisp" mode, but not in XEmacs running 
> "cmulisp" mode. XEmacs doesn't seem to have "run-lisp". Is there a 
> different key combination in "cmulisp" mode than in "run-lisp" ?

If you have ilisp installed (highly recommended), you ought to have a
number of more specific options, such as:

- run-ilisp, which prompts for a specific Lisp dialect (hit tab for
  options)

It also sets up functions for the various dialects, including (as a
partial list):
- cmulisp
- clisp-hs
- guile
- mzscheme
- gcl
- ecl
- lispworks
- sbcl
- scm
- allegro
- chez
- drscheme-jr
-- 
(concatenate 'string "aa454" ·@freenet.carleton.ca")
http://www.cbbrowne.com/info/multiplexor.html
?OM ERROR
From: Andy
Subject: Re: IDE ( was: Re: Debian + CMUCL + Hemlock)
Date: 
Message-ID: <3CF3DA1B.C6FF32B9@smi.de>
Oleg wrote:
> 
> C-x-e works in Emacs running "run-lisp" mode, but not in XEmacs running
> "cmulisp" mode. XEmacs doesn't seem to have "run-lisp". Is there a
> different key combination in "cmulisp" mode than in "run-lisp" ?
> 
I'm currently not sitting on my linux system but i'll try out it later.
I'm
still shure that it works since sometimes i try to evalutae an
expression
in CMUCL and use Ctrl-XE instead of Ctrl-CE in XEmacs. And often got the
result
in the mini-buffer not in CMUCL ;-)

Best regards
AHz
From: synthespian
Subject: Re: IDE ( was: Re: Debian + CMUCL + Hemlock)
Date: 
Message-ID: <pan.2002.05.29.00.18.50.38885.18395@debian-rs.org>
On Tue, 28 May 2002 09:44:11 -0300, Andy wrote:

> Oleg wrote:
>> 
>> Speaking of Emacs, I can't figure out how to do M-C-x in lisp mode,
>> i.e. evaluate an expression in a buffer that is not *inferior-lisp*.
> Whats with Ctrl-X-E ? This evaluates the expression before the cursor in
> Emacs.
> 
> 
>> I press x while holding both ESC and Ctrl. This gets a beep out of
>> Emacs and KDE launches KTop. Not exactly what I want.
> Use the KDE Controlcenter to bypass the Ctrl-ESC to emacs (The KDE
> default is
> to launch KTop)
> 
>> BTW, are there alternative IDEs? I usually use VIM for editing, and I'm
>> not the biggest fan of Emacs and its IMO convoluted key combinations.
> There is Jabberwokey. But i havn't tried it. I feel fine with XEmacs :-)
> 
> Best regards
> AHz
Dear AHz-

	When searching for Jabberwokey I found myself in a site where a guy
expressed himself like this: "gaaaaaaaa poo head bum face wee weee suck it bitch".
	Since English is my second (nah, actually it's my fourth) language, I'd
like to know if the term is some sort of slang or a real application.
	Sorry for the misunderstanding if it was slang.

	Regs
	Henry



-- 


_________________________________________________________________
Micro$oft-Free Human         100% Debian GNU/Linux
     KMFMS              "Bring the genome to the people!
		···········@debian-rs.org
www.debian.org - www.debian-br.cipsga.org.br - www.debian-rs.org
From: Andy
Subject: Re: IDE ( was: Re: Debian + CMUCL + Hemlock)
Date: 
Message-ID: <3CF4AF6E.CBDDC1D8@smi.de>
synthespian wrote:
>         When searching for Jabberwokey I found myself in a site where a guy
> expressed himself like this: "gaaaaaaaa poo head bum face wee weee suck it bitch".
>         Since English is my second (nah, actually it's my fourth) language, I'd
> like to know if the term is some sort of slang or a real application.
>         Sorry for the misunderstanding if it was slang.
> 
Hi Henry.
It's no slang, just a typo. The program is called "Jabberwocky" (without the last e)
You will find it here: 
  http://sourceforge.net/projects/jabberwocky/

Best regards
AHz
From: Peter Buchlovsky
Subject: OT: Jabberwocky
Date: 
Message-ID: <874rgqj4x6.fsf_-_@cs.bham.ac.uk>
Andy <···@smi.de> writes:

> synthespian wrote:
> >         When searching for Jabberwokey I found myself in a site where a guy
> > expressed himself like this: "gaaaaaaaa poo head bum face wee weee suck it bitch".
> >         Since English is my second (nah, actually it's my fourth) language, I'd
> > like to know if the term is some sort of slang or a real application.
> >         Sorry for the misunderstanding if it was slang.
> > 
> Hi Henry.
> It's no slang, just a typo. The program is called "Jabberwocky" (without the last e)
> You will find it here: 
>   http://sourceforge.net/projects/jabberwocky/

In case you didn't know, Jabberwocky is also the name of a famous poem
written by Lewis Carroll.


-- 
Peter
From: Erik Winkels
Subject: Re: IDE ( was: Re: Debian + CMUCL + Hemlock)
Date: 
Message-ID: <87y9e4z7ln.fsf@xs4all.nl>
Oleg <············@yahoo.com> wrote on Tue, 28 May 2002 08:38:58 -0400:
> 
> I'm not the biggest fan of Emacs and its IMO convoluted key
> combinations.

So, why not rebind them?  Easiest thing in the world.  Check section
10 "Key bindings" at this URL:

        http://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/emacs-faq.text

  - or -

Press C-h C-k and then the key you want to rebind.  You'll now see
which function is called when you press that key.  Remember that
function.

Now press M-x and type global-set-key, press the key you want to bind
a function to and after that enter the function you want to be bound
to that key.
From: Alexey Dejneka
Subject: Re: IDE ( was: Re: Debian + CMUCL + Hemlock)
Date: 
Message-ID: <m33cwbfz5k.fsf@comail.ru>
Oleg <············@yahoo.com> writes:

> Speaking of Emacs, I can't figure out how to do M-C-x in lisp mode, i.e. 
> evaluate an expression in a buffer that is not *inferior-lisp*.
> 
> I press x while holding both ESC and Ctrl.

Press and release ESC and then press Ctrl-x, or use Alt-Ctrl-x.

Regards,
Alexey Dejneka

---
"You've said you removed a bug. Why has the code grown?"
From: Thomas F. Burdick
Subject: Re: Debian + CMUCL + Hemlock
Date: 
Message-ID: <xcvsn4cxcbg.fsf@firestorm.OCF.Berkeley.EDU>
Adam Warner <······@consulting.net.nz> writes:

> emacs+ilisp will provide a much better IDE. The only reason to use hemlock
> would be if you were going to spend a long time hacking it to bring it up
> to the level of emacs+ilisp.

Hrm.  ILISP does have some features that Hemlock is lacking, but it
goes both ways.  AFAIK, ILISP does not support running multiple slave
lisps, nor remote lisps.  That's kind of a major limitation.  The main
reason I use ILISP is because I often find myself having to use a
plain terminal, and the terminal support in Hemlock has experienced
too much bit-rot.  If you use X11 exclusively, I don't think the
choice between Emacs/ILISP and Hemlock is at all clear.

-- 
           /|_     .-----------------------.                        
         ,'  .\  / | No to Imperialist war |                        
     ,--'    _,'   | Wage class war!       |                        
    /       /      `-----------------------'                        
   (   -.  |                               
   |     ) |                               
  (`-.  '--.)                              
   `. )----'                               
From: Raymond Toy
Subject: Re: Debian + CMUCL + Hemlock
Date: 
Message-ID: <4nelfvncb3.fsf@rtp.ericsson.se>
>>>>> "Thomas" == Thomas F Burdick <···@firestorm.OCF.Berkeley.EDU> writes:

    Thomas> Adam Warner <······@consulting.net.nz> writes:
    >> emacs+ilisp will provide a much better IDE. The only reason to use hemlock
    >> would be if you were going to spend a long time hacking it to bring it up
    >> to the level of emacs+ilisp.

    Thomas> too much bit-rot.  If you use X11 exclusively, I don't think the
    Thomas> choice between Emacs/ILISP and Hemlock is at all clear.

It is to me. :-) My brain and fingers are hardwired for Emacs/XEmacs
keystrokes.  They don't work for me in Hemlock, like C-h to get help
and C-x C-c doesn't close hemlock.

Ray
From: Thomas F. Burdick
Subject: Re: Debian + CMUCL + Hemlock
Date: 
Message-ID: <xcvn0ujyjo1.fsf@firestorm.OCF.Berkeley.EDU>
Raymond Toy <···@rtp.ericsson.se> writes:

> >>>>> "Thomas" == Thomas F Burdick <···@firestorm.OCF.Berkeley.EDU> writes:
> 
>     Thomas> Adam Warner <······@consulting.net.nz> writes:
>     >> emacs+ilisp will provide a much better IDE. The only reason to use hemlock
>     >> would be if you were going to spend a long time hacking it to bring it up
>     >> to the level of emacs+ilisp.
> 
>     Thomas> too much bit-rot.  If you use X11 exclusively, I don't think the
>     Thomas> choice between Emacs/ILISP and Hemlock is at all clear.
> 
> It is to me. :-) My brain and fingers are hardwired for Emacs/XEmacs
> keystrokes.  They don't work for me in Hemlock, like C-h to get help
> and C-x C-c doesn't close hemlock.

Well, for current heavy users of GNU or X Emacs, that's a good
pressure in that direction.  But I think it's safe to say that most
people who are looking for a Lisp environment probably aren't heavy
Emacs users.  As a long-time Emacs user myself, I just rebound the
Hemlock keys to be more GNU-Emacs-y, which took care of 98% of my
problems with Hemlock/X11.  I mean, really, if you're invested enough
in a particular Emacs that you don't want to switch to another Emacs
variant, you really ought to be comfortable rebinding your keys :-)

-- 
           /|_     .-----------------------.                        
         ,'  .\  / | No to Imperialist war |                        
     ,--'    _,'   | Wage class war!       |                        
    /       /      `-----------------------'                        
   (   -.  |                               
   |     ) |                               
  (`-.  '--.)                              
   `. )----'                               
From: Adam Warner
Subject: Re: Debian + CMUCL + Hemlock
Date: 
Message-ID: <ad1rj1$thbco$1@ID-105510.news.dfncis.de>
Thomas F. Burdick wrote:

> Adam Warner <······@consulting.net.nz> writes:
> 
>> emacs+ilisp will provide a much better IDE. The only reason to use
>> hemlock would be if you were going to spend a long time hacking it to
>> bring it up to the level of emacs+ilisp.
> 
> Hrm.  ILISP does have some features that Hemlock is lacking, but it goes
> both ways.  AFAIK, ILISP does not support running multiple slave lisps,
> nor remote lisps.  That's kind of a major limitation.  The main reason I
> use ILISP is because I often find myself having to use a plain terminal,
> and the terminal support in Hemlock has experienced too much bit-rot. If
> you use X11 exclusively, I don't think the choice between Emacs/ILISP
> and Hemlock is at all clear.

My expressed opinion was largely based on what Scott Fahlman, principal
research scientist at Carnegie Mellon University said about Hemlock as far
back as 1994 (although I did try the Debian Potato version of Hemlock). I
filed it away and have located it again:

http://groups.google.co.nz/groups?hl=en&lr=&selm=3a9p59%24il9%40cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu

   Hemlock is very nice, and is public-domain, but it would be a big job
   to port it to AKCL (or GCL) and an even bigger job to tune it to the
   point where you would want to use it.

   We de-emphasized out development of Hemlock a couple of years back,
   when surveys showed that most CMU CL users were using Gnu Emacs for
   editing/running Lisp, even when running in CMU CL.  And now the whole
   CMU CL project is defunct.  So whatever we have said about having only
   limited time for ongoing CMU CL support goes double for Hemlock -- it's
   good code, mostly, but we couldn't offer much help to any porting
   effort.

My recollection was partially incorrect. I did correctly remember that you
would have to tune or hack it to the point where you would want to use it,
but I misunderstood that comment was intended for a non-CMUCL platform.
Still, Scott Fahlman found that most users were using Emacs with CMUCL.

A complete IDE for CMUCL built using Lisp would be very tempting to
enhance, and it's extraordinary to find such a large body of code that is
in the public domain.

Regards,
Adam
From: Hannu Koivisto
Subject: Re: Debian + CMUCL + Hemlock
Date: 
Message-ID: <877klmui20.fsf@lynx.ionific.com>
···@firestorm.OCF.Berkeley.EDU (Thomas F. Burdick) writes:

> Hrm.  ILISP does have some features that Hemlock is lacking, but it
> goes both ways.  AFAIK, ILISP does not support running multiple slave
> lisps, nor remote lisps.  That's kind of a major limitation.  The
> main

It supports multiple slave lisps, but there are some bugs in this
area.  I don't remember ever trying it, but I think you should be
able to run lisps on a remote machine through ssh or a similar
remote shell.  There is no built-in support for attaching to a
running remote or local slave lisp (I recall there is such support
in Hemlock).  Something like detachtty by Daniel Barlow might (I
haven't tried) provide such functionality, however.

-- 
Hannu
From: Adam Warner
Subject: Re: Debian + CMUCL + Hemlock
Date: 
Message-ID: <ad2544$t57bj$1@ID-105510.news.dfncis.de>
On Tue, 28 May 2002 19:57:49 +1200, Oleg wrote:

> Hi
> 
> I'm running Debian Woody and I have the following packages installed:
> cmucl, cmucl-normal, cmucl-source (all version 3.0.9).
> 
> Apparently, cmucl-source replaces cmucl-hemlock, among others. However, I 
> can not find it. I understand that hemlock is some sort of IDE to be used 
> instead of Emacs, so it should be a binary. `auto-apt search hemlock` gives:
> 
> usr/share/common-lisp/systems/cmucl-hemlock.system      devel/cmucl-source
> usr/share/common-lisp/source/cmucl-hemlock      devel/cmucl-source
> 
> Am I supposed to compile these somehow?

Oleg, I've set out how to get Hemlock running in Debian Woody over at
CLiki:

http://ww.telent.net/cliki/CloserLookAtHemlock

Regards,
Adam