On 11/12/06, Maciek Pasternacki
> On Setting Orange, The Aftermath 53, 3172 YOLD, Brad Beveridge wrote:
> > One of the catch phrases of Python is that it comes with "batteries
> > included". About the last thing that a standard Common Lisp
> > implementation can be accused of is that it comes with all the
> > trimmings. There are certainly plenty of really nice libraries out
> > there, but not in the same organised way as Python.
> Good point.
> > I propose that we clone this page http://docs.python.org/lib/lib.html,
> > and emulate as much as possible.
> > The CL-Batteries should be installable from ASDF-install. It should
> > have good documentation (again, look to the Python example), and
> > should be portable across as many implementations as possible - though
> > I suggest we choose an implementation to work to first.
> > Thoughts?
> Why clone libraries which are tuned to other language? Why emulate
> Python in Lisp?
Sorry, my language was unclear. Your next paragraph more eloquently
describes my intentions. Although the Python list is useful as a
reference to track against - if we are missing functionality that the
Python library has, why?
> CL-Batteries as such, OTOH, seems to be a Good Idea. It might be a
> dependency-only package that would pull commonly used libraries and
> save users effort of downloading each one separately (and/or
> discovering them at all). I'd start with Iterate, CL-PPCRE, Anaphora
> and/or Arnesi (last one isn't a no-brainer, but I find it *very*
> usable), SPLIT-SEQUENCE, SLIME, CL-FAD, trivial-sockets, trivial-http,
> bordeaux-threads, puri, net-telent-date, maybe some MOP compatibility
> layer... that's what I have currently in mind, list should probably be
> a lot longer.