Hello. I am just beginning to use Common LISP. I must use LISA for a
programming assignment. I am unfamiliar with CLOS and I do not know
much about Common Lisp yet. However, I am using SBCL. I created a
symbolic link in my ~/.sbcl/systems to lisa.asd to load the LISA
definition. When in SLIME, I typed (require :lisa). It then seemed to
perform a big compilation process. I kept receiving errors, and kept
pressing '0'. Anyhow, I would like to reperform this process so that I
can list the errors that I was receiving. When I type (require :lisa)
now, it just returns NIL. How can I start over? Is this the right way
to use ASD? Again, I am completely new to Common Lisp. Thanks in
advance for any help.
dstein64 wrote:
> When I type (require :lisa)
> now, it just returns NIL. How can I start over? Is this the right way
> to use ASD? Again, I am completely new to Common Lisp. Thanks in
> advance for any help.
I am not an expert so take this with caution.
First time loading will compile and create the compiled files and loads them.
These compiled files have the file extension .fasl for sbcl
So you might try to look for the file
rete.fasl
as an example
Get rid of all those fasl files and you should see all the errors again.
I have seen similar errors mostly related to package locks and don't really know how to fix them.
Also see another post of mine in this group regarding what looks like a parsing bug in Lisa
The google group link for it is
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.lisp/browse_thread/thread/e80f1cb23b5e75cd/7f0e39f86be733f5
Regarding asdf, I find using
http://common-lisp.net/project/cl-containers/asdf-binary-locations/
keeps stuff clean
-Antony
Thank you for the quick reply. I was unable to find these asdf files.
I thought of a better way to reword my question though:
Suppose that .asd files are compiled because I typed (require ...)
Where do the default .fasl files go, and how can I remove them? Thanks.
On Mar 8, 3:09 pm, dstein64 <········@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thank you for the quick reply. I was unable to find these asdf files.
> I thought of a better way to reword my question though:
>
> Suppose that .asd files are compiled because I typed (require ...)
>
> Where do the default .fasl files go, and how can I remove them? Thanks.
I am receiving these package lock errors. Does anyone know what these
are or how I can avoid them. I am using SBCL. Thanks!!!
dstein64 <········@gmail.com> writes:
> Thank you for the quick reply. I was unable to find these asdf files.
> I thought of a better way to reword my question though:
asdf files are files with a .asd type.
lisp files compiled by sbcl have a .fasl type.
> Suppose that .asd files are compiled because I typed (require ...)
Yes.
> Where do the default .fasl files go, and how can I remove them? Thanks.
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.
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
Grace personified,
I leap into the window.
I meant to do that.
On Mar 9, 7:33 am, Pascal Bourguignon <····@informatimago.com> 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.
On 2008-03-09 13:32:36 -0400, dstein64 <········@gmail.com> said:
> 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.
Be aware that in order to compile SBCL you need an existing common lisp
implementation - i.e., sbcl is largely written in common lisp itself.
Therefore, you should not remove *all* your common lisp implementations
as you will need at least one of them to compile sbcl from sources.
On Mar 9, 6:32 pm, dstein64 <········@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 9, 7:33 am, Pascal Bourguignon <····@informatimago.com> 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
On Sun, 09 Mar 2008 10:32:36 -0700, dstein64 wrote:
> 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.
no need to compile SBCL yourself .. pre-compiled binaries are provided on
the SBCL site
--
Lars Rune Nøstdal
http://nostdal.org/
On Mar 9, 6:32 pm, dstein64 <········@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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.
Hint: the common lisp controller assumes to find links to all the
asdfs in
/usr/share/common-lisp/systems
So if you want to install an adsf system, you have just to put a link
to its .asd there. In general I find it quite convenient, since I can
then the installed system with e.g. sbcl, clisp, you-name-it.
Moreover, you can find and install many common lisp .deb packages
using aptitude (or apt-get ...). They usually have prefix "cl-". If
you install them, you can find their source in /usr/share/common-lisp/
source
cheers,
Matteo
Pascal Bourguignon <···@informatimago.com> writes:
> dstein64 <········@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> Thank you for the quick reply. I was unable to find these asdf files.
>> I thought of a better way to reword my question though:
>
> asdf files are files with a .asd type.
>
> lisp files compiled by sbcl have a .fasl type.
>
>
>> Suppose that .asd files are compiled because I typed (require ...)
>
> Yes.
>
>
>> Where do the default .fasl files go, and how can I remove them? Thanks.
>
> 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/.
By default, common-lisp-controller on Debian/Ubuntu stores those files in
/var/cache/common-lisp-controller/1000/lisp-implementation/...
^^^^
numeric uid
Nicolas
dstein64 wrote:
> Hello. I am just beginning to use Common LISP. I must use LISA for a
> programming assignment. I am unfamiliar with CLOS and I do not know
> much about Common Lisp yet. However, I am using SBCL. I created a
> symbolic link in my ~/.sbcl/systems to lisa.asd to load the LISA
> definition. When in SLIME, I typed (require :lisa). It then seemed to
> perform a big compilation process. I kept receiving errors, and kept
> pressing '0'. Anyhow, I would like to reperform this process so that I
> can list the errors that I was receiving.
It looks like you are using "pure" SBCL, that is, you fire up sbcl from
the command line and use the repl as is, right?
If it is so, you might want to consider setting up a more serious lisp
development environment. If you wish to stay open source, you should
consider emacs + slime [1]. If you are not yet familiar with emacs,
there will be a steep learning curve, but it might be worth it. [1] also
points to a good collection of docs and tutorials.
If you are looking for something besides emacs, check out the free
trials from allegro and lispworks. In any case, using the plain sbcl
repl "as is" is generally not a good idea, because you miss out on a
number of great features of lisp.
[1] http://common-lisp.net/project/slime/
> When I type (require :lisa)
> now, it just returns NIL. How can I start over? Is this the right way
> to use ASD? Again, I am completely new to Common Lisp. Thanks in
> advance for any help.
On Mar 9, 6:56 am, Peter Hildebrandt <·················@gmail.com>
wrote:
> It looks like you are using "pure" SBCL, that is, you fire up sbcl from
> the command line and use the repl as is, right?
>
> If it is so, you might want to consider setting up a more serious lisp
> development environment. If you wish to stay open source, you should
> consider emacs + slime [1]. If you are not yet familiar with emacs,
> there will be a steep learning curve, but it might be worth it. [1] also
> points to a good collection of docs and tutorials.
>
> If you are looking for something besides emacs, check out the free
> trials from allegro and lispworks. In any case, using the plain sbcl
> repl "as is" is generally not a good idea, because you miss out on a
> number of great features of lisp.
>
> [1]http://common-lisp.net/project/slime/
>
> > When I type (require :lisa)
> > now, it just returns NIL. How can I start over? Is this the right way
> > to use ASD? Again, I am completely new to Common Lisp. Thanks in
> > advance for any help.
Hi Peter. I have been using SLIME, and you are correct about the steep
learning curve. I had to learn emacs before I was even able to get
started with SLIME. I still feel as if I am doing some things the long
way. Do you know of any site or tutorial that lists all the key
bindings that work with SLIME? Also, when I load slime by typing M-x
slime, a REPL buffer loads. At that point, I usually press C-x 2, then
C-x C-f to load a lisp file in a split window. Is there any way to
have 2 buffers load automatically when I load slime, rather than
having to split the window every time? Thanks.
dstein64 wrote:
> I still feel as if I am doing some things the long
> way. Do you know of any site or tutorial that lists all the key
> bindings that work with SLIME?
How about the SLIME manual [1]? Or check out the stuff mentioned on
Bill Clementson's blog [2]. He has a good overview over debugging
techniques, btw [3]. Just google around for "emacs slime tutorials" or
the like.
[1] http://common-lisp.net/project/slime/doc/slime.pdf
[2] http://bc.tech.coop/blog/050501.html
[3] http://bc.tech.coop/blog/040628.html
> Also, when I load slime by typing M-x
> slime, a REPL buffer loads. At that point, I usually press C-x 2, then
> C-x C-f to load a lisp file in a split window. Is there any way to
> have 2 buffers load automatically when I load slime, rather than
> having to split the window every time? Thanks.
I am pretty sure there is a way. But you might want to save this until
you are a little more familiar with emacs and slime.
You might like paredit [4], btw. Here is a list of key bindings [5].
[4] http://mumble.net/~campbell/emacs/paredit.el
[5] http://mumble.net/~campbell/emacs/paredit.html
Peter
dstein64 <········@gmail.com> writes:
<snipped>
> Also, when I load slime by typing M-x slime, a REPL buffer loads. At
> that point, I usually press C-x 2, then C-x C-f to load a lisp file in
> a split window. Is there any way to have 2 buffers load automatically
> when I load slime, rather than having to split the window every time?
> Thanks.
You can do it, but what do you want the new buffer to contain? In Emacs
there are hooks, variables which hold a list of functions to be run when
the hook is called. What you want to do is pick a likely looking hook
(at a glance, SLIME-CONNECTED-HOOK looks good) and add a function that
sets up your workspace how you like it.* E.g.
(add-hook 'slime-connected-hook
(lambda ()
;; Anything Emacs can do can be scripted here.
(split-window-vertically)
(switch-to-buffer "*slime-scratch*")))
Disclaimer: I'm not an Emacs expert or a Slime expert, and there may be
a more appropriate hook to use, and possibly a more appropriate function
than SPLIT-WINDOW-VERTICALLY. That said, this does work right. Note that
when you repeatedly call ADD-HOOK (as when testing), old hook functions
will not be deleted. You have to manually do that.
* Customizations you want to keep should be put in the file ~/.emacs --
it's an Emacs Lisp file that gets run on startup.