Lisp HUG Maillist Archive

Standard name for a command-line executable?

asdf and cl-launch suppose that there's an executable called lispworks
that executes without starting a graphical environment. It appears
that the assumption isn't very robust and many people have an
executable called lispworks that does start a graphical environment.

Is there some standard or semi-standard way that people name a
text-mode version of lispworks? Something like lispworks-console, or
lispworks-command?

—♯ƒ • François-René ÐVB Rideau •Reflection&Cybernethics• http://fare.tunes.org
In Paris they simply stared when I spoke to them in French; I never did
succeed in making those idiots understand their language. — Mark Twain

_______________________________________________
Lisp Hug - the mailing list for LispWorks users
lisp-hug@lispworks.com
http://www.lispworks.com/support/lisp-hug.html

Re: Standard name for a command-line executable?

On 8 Apr 2015, at 01:47, Faré <fahree@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Is there some standard or semi-standard way that people name a
> text-mode version of lispworks? Something like lispworks-console, or
> lispworks-command?

I call my console image 'lw' as I'm a Unix 2-letter-command sort of person.

_______________________________________________
Lisp Hug - the mailing list for LispWorks users
lisp-hug@lispworks.com
http://www.lispworks.com/support/lisp-hug.html

Re: Standard name for a command-line executable?

FWIW, on my last project we ran a headless Lispworks named "lw-console"

Keith M Corbett
kmcorbett@gmail.com
+1 617 620 6749




On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 5:51 PM -0700, "Faré" <fahree@gmail.com> wrote:

asdf and cl-launch suppose that there's an executable called lispworks
that executes without starting a graphical environment. It appears
that the assumption isn't very robust and many people have an
executable called lispworks that does start a graphical environment.

Is there some standard or semi-standard way that people name a
text-mode version of lispworks? Something like lispworks-console, or
lispworks-command?

—♯ƒ • François-René ÐVB Rideau •Reflection&Cybernethics• http://fare.tunes.org
In Paris they simply stared when I spoke to them in French; I never did
succeed in making those idiots understand their language. — Mark Twain

_______________________________________________
Lisp Hug - the mailing list for LispWorks users
lisp-hug@lispworks.com
http://www.lispworks.com/support/lisp-hug.html

Re: Standard name for a command-line executable?

So a quickpoll on lisp-hug reveals that for a console-only lispworks
executable, people use
   lw, lw-console (x2), lwcon.

I see a pattern. Either make it short lwcon, or long lispworks-console.
For the sake of clarity, and since it's for use in scripts, I suppose
I'll standardize on
   lispworks-console
and everyone can just keep using what they are using and have a symlink,
copy, shortcut, trivial wrapper script, etc.
(A few years back, executable names limitations would have suggested lwcon,
but we're past that.)

—♯ƒ • François-René ÐVB Rideau •Reflection&Cybernethics• http://fare.tunes.org
The competitor to be feared is one who never bothers about you at all,
but goes on making his own business better all the time. — Henry Ford


On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 10:18 AM, Pascal Costanza <pc@p-cos.net> wrote:
> lwcon here.
>
> I don’t think there is a common name.
>
> Pascal
>
> On 8 Apr 2015, at 15:06, Marc Battyani <marc.battyani@fractalconcept.com>
> wrote:
>
> lw-console for me too.
>
> Marc
>
> On 4/8/15 09:00, Keith Corbett wrote:
>
> FWIW, on my last project we ran a headless Lispworks named "lw-console"
>
> Keith M Corbett
> kmcorbett@gmail.com
> +1 617 620 6749
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 5:51 PM -0700, "Faré" <fahree@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> asdf and cl-launch suppose that there's an executable called lispworks
>> that executes without starting a graphical environment. It appears
>> that the assumption isn't very robust and many people have an
>> executable called lispworks that does start a graphical environment.
>>
>> Is there some standard or semi-standard way that people name a
>> text-mode version of lispworks? Something like lispworks-console, or
>> lispworks-command?
>>
>> —♯ƒ • François-René ÐVB Rideau •Reflection&Cybernethics•
>> http://fare.tunes.org
>> In Paris they simply stared when I spoke to them in French; I never did
>> succeed in making those idiots understand their language. — Mark Twain
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Lisp Hug - the mailing list for LispWorks users
>> lisp-hug@lispworks.com
>> http://www.lispworks.com/support/lisp-hug.html
>>
>
>
> --
> Pascal Costanza
> The views expressed in this email are my own, and not those of my employer.
>
>
>

_______________________________________________
Lisp Hug - the mailing list for LispWorks users
lisp-hug@lispworks.com
http://www.lispworks.com/support/lisp-hug.html

RE: Standard name for a command-line executable?

Well, I’m  not skilled enough, but from what I see, it seems you have sort of “delivery” of lispworks – which is runnable application. So if you create simple REPL program and do delivery, you will have console like env. You can check if you have in those app these commands: compile-file, save-image. If not, then this is delivered app in Lispworks(those commands are striped off).

 

Regards

 

Ladislav

 

PS: this is from documentation

29.7 Using the Application Builder to save a development image

To use the Application Builder to save a development image you first configure it to know about it your save-image script, which you must write by hand. Then you invoke the Build command.

For example, you can use the Application Builder to save a console development image. We assume that you have the script in the file /tmp/resave.lisp as described under "Saving a non-GUI image with multiprocessing enabled" in the LispWorks User Guide and Reference Manual . Enter /tmp/resave.lisp in the Build script: area, and then press the Build the application using the script toolbar button. Then you can run the new image ~/lw-console .

Note: The Application Builder runs the build in a subprocess. It does not save the current LispWorks IDE image in which you are running the Application Builder tool, and your saved image does not inherit any settings you have made in the current LispWorks IDE image. For that functionality, see Session Saving.

 

 

 

From: owner-lisp-hug@lispworks.com [mailto:owner-lisp-hug@lispworks.com] On Behalf Of Pascal Costanza
Sent: Wednesday, April 8, 2015 4:19 PM
To: Marc Battyani
Cc: Lispworks HUG
Subject: Re: Standard name for a command-line executable?

 

lwcon here.

 

I don’t think there is a common name.

 

Pascal

 

On 8 Apr 2015, at 15:06, Marc Battyani <marc.battyani@fractalconcept.com> wrote:

 

lw-console for me too.

Marc

On 4/8/15 09:00, Keith Corbett wrote:

FWIW, on my last project we ran a headless Lispworks named "lw-console"


Keith M Corbett
kmcorbett@gmail.com
+1 617 620 6749

 



On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 5:51 PM -0700, "Faré" <fahree@gmail.com> wrote:

asdf and cl-launch suppose that there's an executable called lispworks
that executes without starting a graphical environment. It appears
that the assumption isn't very robust and many people have an
executable called lispworks that does start a graphical environment.
 
Is there some standard or semi-standard way that people name a
text-mode version of lispworks? Something like lispworks-console, or
lispworks-command?
 
—♯ƒ • François-René ÐVB Rideau •Reflection&Cybernethics• http://fare.tunes.org
In Paris they simply stared when I spoke to them in French; I never did
succeed in making those idiots understand their language. — Mark Twain
 
_______________________________________________
Lisp Hug - the mailing list for LispWorks users
lisp-hug@lispworks.com
http://www.lispworks.com/support/lisp-hug.html
 

 

 

--
Pascal Costanza
The views expressed in this email are my own, and not those of my employer.

 

 

 

Re: Standard name for a command-line executable?

On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 6:19 PM, Robert Goldman <rpgoldman@gmail.com> wrote:
> Don't we just use the value of the LISPWORKS environment variable?  Or
> are you asking what should be the default value we use in case this
> variable is unset?
>
Yes that's what we use, and yes I'm wondering what is a sensible default.

I think the verbose lispworks-console makes for a better default than
the current lispworks
as used by cl-launch, lisp-invocation and the asdf tests.

If you agree, I'll update all of them.

—♯ƒ • François-René ÐVB Rideau •Reflection&Cybernethics• http://fare.tunes.org
Does artillery violate the natural rights of the target? I would say: the
entire *purpose* of artillery is to violate the natural rights of the target.
        — Mencius Moldbug

_______________________________________________
Lisp Hug - the mailing list for LispWorks users
lisp-hug@lispworks.com
http://www.lispworks.com/support/lisp-hug.html

Re: Standard name for a command-line executable?

I’m using a (slightly modified) script originally provided by LW (maybe it’s part of the manual or installation guide), and using the script I have the command line executable like this:

lispworks-6-1-1-64-bit-console

and

lispworks-6-1-1-64-bit-motif-console

and of course GNU Bash can auto-complete the rest of part after I’ve typed the beginning of the long name …

---
Chun

(in-package "CL-USER")

(load-all-patches)

#+:cocoa
(compile-file-if-needed
  (sys:example-file "configuration/macos-application-bundle")
  :load t)

(let* ((name (format nil "LispWorks ~A~@[~A~]"
                     (lisp-implementation-version)
                     (when (sys:featurep :lispworks-64bit) " 64-bit")))
       (exe-name (string-downcase 
                  (substitute #\- #\. (substitute #\- #\Space name)))))
  #-:cocoa
  (save-image (merge-pathnames
	       (make-pathname :name (format nil "~A-console" exe-name))
	       (lisp-image-name))
              :console t
	      :remarks name
	      :environment nil
	      :multiprocessing nil)
  (save-image #+:cocoa
              (write-macos-application-bundle
               (make-pathname :name name
                              :directory
                              (butlast
                               (pathname-directory (lisp-image-name))
                               3 ; omit *.app/Contents/MacOS
                               ))
               :executable-name exe-name)
              #-:cocoa 
              (merge-pathnames
               (make-pathname :name exe-name)
               (lisp-image-name))
              :remarks name
	      :environment t))

Il giorno 08/apr/2015, alle ore 02:47, Faré <fahree@gmail.com> ha scritto:

> 
> asdf and cl-launch suppose that there's an executable called lispworks
> that executes without starting a graphical environment. It appears
> that the assumption isn't very robust and many people have an
> executable called lispworks that does start a graphical environment.
> 
> Is there some standard or semi-standard way that people name a
> text-mode version of lispworks? Something like lispworks-console, or
> lispworks-command?
> 
> —♯ƒ • François-René ÐVB Rideau •Reflection&Cybernethics• http://fare.tunes.org
> In Paris they simply stared when I spoke to them in French; I never did
> succeed in making those idiots understand their language. — Mark Twain
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Lisp Hug - the mailing list for LispWorks users
> lisp-hug@lispworks.com
> http://www.lispworks.com/support/lisp-hug.html
> 


_______________________________________________
Lisp Hug - the mailing list for LispWorks users
lisp-hug@lispworks.com
http://www.lispworks.com/support/lisp-hug.html

Re: Standard name for a command-line executable?

FWIW we always have "lispworks" as a soft link pointing to the standard
build with gui, and "tty-lispworks" as a soft link pointing to our own
"console only" build.
-- 
  (espen)

_______________________________________________
Lisp Hug - the mailing list for LispWorks users
lisp-hug@lispworks.com
http://www.lispworks.com/support/lisp-hug.html
Updated at: 2020-12-10 08:33 UTC