Quote:
> I noticed the require function is obsolete (it does not work in my
> implementation, ACL), but I have some code from a book that uses it
> quite a bit. If I try "load" it tends to gives lots of warnings
> saying that it is reloading the same stuff over and over. Is there a
> better substitution of require than load?
require ends up being useful for loading extra modules provided by an
implementation. For example, in LispWorks, you might say something
like:
(require "comm")
and their implementation of Common Lisp loads the networking
extensions not specified by the ANSI CL standard.
Other implementations use symbols to name the modules. e.g. in ACL:
(require :clx)
would load in the :xlib package, etc. I find it to be a handy system
for implementations. Every language environment seems to have
something of this nature, though I think if you want to do the right
thing for _your_ stuff, use defsystem. Then, you can load systems,
compile them, etc. Also, in case you care, there are defsystem
implementations that work on just about every ANSI CL out there, and
are platform-independent for the most part.
dave