Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!spool2.mu.edu!uunet!mcsun!ukc!edcastle!aipna!cstr!tim
From: tim@cstr.ed.ac.uk (Tim Bradshaw)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.clos
Subject: Re: pcl on vax
Message-ID: <TIM.91Jan18124854@kahlo.cstr.ed.ac.uk>
Date: 18 Jan 91 12:48:54 GMT
References: <CMM.0.90.2.663747282.murthy@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>
	<TIM.91Jan16165923@kahlo.cstr.ed.ac.uk>
	<1991Jan17.202929.11918@magnus.ircc.ohio-state.edu>
Sender: news@aipna.ed.ac.uk
Distribution: inet
Organization: CSTR, University of Edinburgh
Lines: 24
In-reply-to: murthy@magnus.ircc.ohio-state.edu's message of 17 Jan 91 20:29:29 GMT

>>>>> On 17 Jan 91 20:29:29 GMT, murthy@magnus.ircc.ohio-state.edu (Murthy S Gandikota) said:
> Yes...it worked when I added 

> #+(and dec common vax (not ultrix)) :version
> #+(and dec common vax (not ultrix)) :newest

> in the place of #+Xerox as suggested by Tim Bradshaw, along with

> #+(and dec common vax (not ultrix))
> (defvar *pcl-directory* (pathname "**"))

[Sorry this isn't a general CLOS posting any more, but I'm not sure who
 looks after this stuff.]

Is there any reason in fact why the definition of
MAKE-PATHNAME-INTERNAL should not be modified to specify the :VERSION
:NEWEST in the distributed code?  It should never matter on systems
without version numbering and it can only help life in the case of
those with.

--tim
Tim Bradshaw.  Internet: tim%ed.cstr@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk
UUCP: ...!uunet!mcvax!ukc!cstr!tim  JANET: tim@uk.ac.ed.cstr
"...wizzards & inchanters..."