Use Slynk over Swank for Common-Lisp

[afsharalex]

Consider using Slynk instead of Swank, or allow user to configure whichever they prefer.

[Olical]

What's the argument for one over the other? Both would be offered as entirely separate clients no matter what happens since they require different implementations. So you'd swap the client out for the language as per the documentation / help files.

I'm fine just having one is one of them is far better at being a generic remote interface with well defined messages. So far I haven't seen that with swank, it seems very minimal and makes it hard to match results up to requests. It also doesn't seem to really be documented but I could be missing something obvious.

[afsharalex]

So Slynk is a fork of Swank that is better maintained and has a few more features. In terms of it having well defined messages I'll have to dig a bit deeper and get back to you.

[indraniel]

Seems like this work is already is progress: #348

[Olical]

New PR is #400