| 1 |
Whatchu talkin' 'bout, Willis? |
| 2 |
> What about a dev-commonlisp category then? Like there is app-emacs |
| 3 |
> (resp. app-vim) for emacs (resp. vim) packages, whereas other editors |
| 4 |
> goes to app-editors. |
| 5 |
Unfortunately I think the most correct solution isn't one that's available. |
| 6 |
What would be correct, is having dev-scheme and dev-cl categories as sub |
| 7 |
categories of dev-lisp, since technically Scheme and CL are both dialects of |
| 8 |
Lisp. However this isn't an option. Creating dev-commonlisp is no better of a |
| 9 |
solution than creating dev-scheme imho. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
-Blake |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
-- |
| 14 |
Blake Matheny |
| 15 |
jake@g.o Computer Science is merely the post-Turing |
| 16 |
http://dev.gentoo.org/~jake/ decline in formal systems theory. |
| 17 |
http://mkfifo.net/gpg.key |
Archives