This is the mail archive of the
kawa@sourceware.org
mailing list for the Kawa project.
Re: GSOC | Extending Common Lisp support
- From: Charles Turner <chturne at gmail dot com>
- To: Per Bothner <per at bothner dot com>
- Cc: Jamison Hope <jrh at theptrgroup dot com>, kawa at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Sun, 1 Jul 2012 21:57:18 +0100
- Subject: Re: GSOC | Extending Common Lisp support
- References: <CAPMhJv3X5bp8=0GXBKzmS235q97E1bjxxLx6kY=gzZUMXoT3yQ@mail.gmail.com> <4FE0F0FB.80105@bothner.com> <BFE05E0B-27F3-4D69-A01B-DA3133CA6C7B@theptrgroup.com> <CAPMhJv3vU2h8eg866yrC-uMt1iK8QcbpwNsdg0foX6+-jZx=2w@mail.gmail.com> <ED2F8394-9DAD-4310-89CF-DF3401690DE6@theptrgroup.com> <CAPMhJv0bv_gudqYJ22YJ1AD7tt-eKO5WBBa7TWK2qFVd=dE_LQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAPMhJv3utLiLUoxqJWa9LgJe8jRbGJaM_rc563+RTfxYnjtpEw@mail.gmail.com> <4FEA2DDF.6020601@bothner.com> <4FEAC39F.9030306@bothner.com> <CAPMhJv0ApGuQwdiTTyynZVnK+9=vPh24RjrOr_61HSN7Q=Dg-w@mail.gmail.com> <4FEB2310.8010003@bothner.com> <CAPMhJv1nL1BEZ+JxH9mOt=Z=6cwaNPbk1t2yz8qkfzwsQswH1Q@mail.gmail.com> <4FECC1E3.8010509@bothner.com> <CAPMhJv3mGLqy907=rNFnGYCwb2SB1o9efjT3Z0zJqfb+q-88aQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAPMhJv2mHBXn9QMWDxoA7ebo0hM72DfvPi424AaAEbkT7pO0ZA@mail.gmail.com> <4FF00B7A.4020900@bothner.com> <1BBA5B9D-409B-4AB8-83F4-68D111B5BFCC@theptrgroup.com> <CAPMhJv3S3-bYjn=rB28fw1hX2DeSR6kKiMASpyNUVz=tuyTisw@mail.gmail.com> <4FF0B6F3.6000207@bothner.com>
On 1 July 2012 21:45, Per Bothner <per@bothner.com> wrote:
> Also - please submit each patch as a new thread with a separate Subject.
> I'm getting a bit tired of everything langing i the same thread ...
This is only patch I've submitted for serious consideration, or are
you tired of the large threads in general? If it's the latter, then
I'll break the threads into topics. I kept everything in one thread
for the benefit of the subscribers who don't care about GSOC, in which
case they can set a filter rule in their mail client to ignore it. I'm
worried I make the list excessively noisy with my mail.
> Do you still need to set PROCEDURE in setSyntax?
No.