quid-pro-quo VS mgl-pax

Here's a Lisp library for contracts: https://github.com/sellout/quid-pro-quo (not saying this is what ADA has ..)

These are just his opinions. Many people really enjoy CLOS, and closer-mop provides better compatibility across implementations. Hygienic macros can be cool (like Racket's) but ultimately I'd consider them a preference. defmacro and gensym are more than fine. CL's type system is quite flexible, and there's stuff like defstar for better function signatures and quid-pro-quo for contract programming (which can actually solve the heading numbering problem). Multimethods are awesome. If you want an ML/Hindley-Milner type system then you should probably be using a different language anyway.

There is some overlap with DRef (https://github.com/melisgl/mgl-pax/tree/master/dref) and PAX (https://github.com/melisgl/mgl-pax). Especially with the live documentation browser of the latter (https://quotenil.com/pax-browser.html), although that's clearly not REPL-based.

While not the same - https://github.com/melisgl/mgl-pax produces excellent documentation for example - https://rabbibotton.github.io/clog/clog-manual.html

MGL-PAX - https://github.com/melisgl/mgl-pax

Ada has contracts also. I think possible to implement. https://github.com/melisgl/mgl-pax which I use for CLOG does a good job of documenting specs and gives me some ideas about how to go about it and same with generic functions themselves. At some point all apply myself to it.

I liked MGL-PAX's approach (https://github.com/melisgl/mgl-pax). It allows mix documentation chapters and code in the same file. You can mention any entity in the documentation or docstring and it will be cross referenced. Also, it has an integration with slime and M-. works in the docstrings.