Re: MCL support for MOP

[stevens@cs.colorado.edu (Curt Stevens)]

> There are a couple of reasons that MCL 2.0 is bigger than 1.3.
> The pretty printer and inspector are included in 2.0, they were
> provided as fasl files in 1.3. 2.0's CLOS generic functions cost a
> little more space than 1.3's Object Lisp obfuns. We'll probably be
> looking into a few ways to reduce the size of MCL (though probably
> not for 2.1). Some ideas are:
> 
> 1) A tree shaker to automagically remove parts of MCL that are
>    not used by your application.
> 
> Feedback please. Do you need these facilities? Other ideas?
> The MCL development team has decided that MCL's size is not the
> most important thing we have to work on right now, but it's
> still important to us.

Yeah!!, I've been wanting for something like this since the Coral Common
Lisp days. I write some fairly tiny utilities that use almost none of the
available MCL functionality and I would like them to be much smaller.

========================================================================
|Curt Stevens   (303) 449-6280 | / |      stevens@cs.colorado.edu      |
|Univ. of Colorado, Boulder    |o o|                                   |
|Computer Sci. Dept. ECOT 7-7  | | |-----------------------------------|
|Campus Box 430                |\_/| I contradict myself? Very well, I |
|Boulder, Colorado 80309  USA  |   | contradict myself. - Walt Whitman |
========================================================================