[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
- To: Kim.fateman at UCB-C70, common-lisp at su-ai
- From: Daniel L. Weinreb <dlw at SCRC-TENEX at MIT-MC>
- Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1982 15:11:00 -0000
- In-reply-to: The message of 29 Aug 82 21:17-EDT from Kim.fateman at Berkeley
Date: 29 Aug 1982 18:17:22-PDT
From: Kim.fateman at Berkeley
It might be appropriate to mention the way that Franz now accomodates
various loop packages (simultaneously):
...This has enabled us to provide "portability" in a useful fashion.
I hope that common lisp supports portability at least as well.
Let us not play semantic games. "Portability" does not refer to the
ability to simultaneously support incompatible packages in the same Lisp
environement. "Portability" means that a program can be moved from one
C.L. implementation on one machine to another on another machine and
still behave the same way. Portability is one of the main goals of
Common Lisp; ability to support many LOOP packages with conflicting
names is no more a goal than is the ability to support user-defined
functions named CAR. There's nothing about portability that says that
we may not define LOOP to be the name of a special form.