🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <63920@cup.portal.com> Thomas_E_Morgan@cup.portal.com writes:
>
>First, how badly will I regret attempting to get PCL working in MACL 2.0?  
>I've made an innocent stab, making some easy changes in some LOW.LISP 
>code and in some DEFSETF's, but have bumped into changes in environment 
>representations that bother the walker code.  Am I wandering into a swamp 
>here?

Which version of PCL are you using (i.e. what is *pcl-system-date*)?
I don't know what the last version of PCL was successfully tested in
MACL 2.0 or earlier (maybe somebody can volunteer that information), but
it should be possible to get July 92 PCL working without too much trouble,
if you're willing to do some guided patching.  You'll also have to specify
where you start having problems.

>Second, if the answer is yes, then what LISP and what machine would you 
>suggest I get myself to run a LISP with a strong MOP - either one that comes 
>with the LISP, or PCL.  (Money is not exactly no object here, but I don't want 
>to spend unreasonable amounts either.  The less I have to think about the 
>machine, the better.).
>
>   ...Tom M 

Different people will suggest different things here.  But the latest
versions of PCL have a nearly complete version of the AMOP implemented
and are pretty efficient.  July 92 PCL has been relatively thouroughly
tested in Lucid, Allegro, CMU CL, and AKCL, at least on Sun 4s and NeXTs.

- Trent Lange