[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
- To: common-lisp@SU-AI.ARPA, ida@UTOKYO-RELAY.CSNET
- Subject: subset
- From: Masayuki Ida <a37078%ccut.u-tokyo.junet%utokyo-relay.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
- Date: Mon, 9 Jun 86 19:22:32+0900
This is in reply to mike@gold-hill-acorn
My basic understanding of subset issue is as follows;
1) "subset" is a subset of the "fullset".
a subset CommonLisp should NOT be a Commonlisp-like Lisp dialect.
2) In general, the language spec which have been discussed with many excellent
implementors/researchers has a tendency to graw, or it will be larger.
I welcome this tendency but there should not exist the field behind the standardization.
There should be two levels or so of language spec for Common Lisp.
3) Needs for a common lisp on small computers will be much larger.
The application on small computers are not only educational one.
As to Mike's discussion on scoping,
I want to have a strict conformance to the full or superset specification.
My experimental Lisp for 86/286 had also a "local lexical and complete global"
I found it is not good to push my scoping principle
As to CommonLoops or object oriented facility for subset,
I also want to add it. But it should be an option.
The members of working group in japan, are making a consensus about a subset.
They internally call their subset as "Common Lisp Core".