[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
- To: common-lisp@su-ai
- From: Kim.fateman at Berkeley
- Date: Sun, 29 Aug 1982 22:17:00 -0000
Subject: loop, case, consensus
It might be appropriate to mention the way that Franz now accomodates
various loop packages (simultaneously): there are compile-time packages
that allow (at least) 3 different, and sometimes conflicting loop packages
(from maclisp, UCI lisp, interlisp) to be used in the same run-time
environment. This has enabled us to provide "portability"
in a useful fashion.
Using different packages simultaneously, interpreted, is not supported.
I hope that common lisp supports portability at least as well.
My vote on case-sensitivity is with jkf, for reasons that I have previously
expressed. For the record, I used case-insensitive Lisps exclusively
from 1967 to 1978. People who use MultiPLe CaSes Expecting THem to be
Mapped to a SinGle CASe should be asked to map them to a single case
(I prefer lower) before providing them as portable packages.
I also think that Roman, Italics, Greek, Boldface, etc if available
should also be distinct from each other.
Mathematicians have found this useful even before the TTY33.
I am concerned about consensus on availability of packages.
1. It seems to me that any "package" which is not made
freely available in at least one correct and complete implementation
in a form based only on the CL kernel (the white pages?) should not
be described in the extended manual (the yellow ?).
2. Stuff which runs under only on one current
environment because of OS hooks not in CL should be allowed in
the yellow pages only if the code to make it run is freely available
(in case someone else has a similar OS).
Do we have code for all the yellow pages now?
Do people agree with view 1? Perhaps my own experience with software
licensing has made me suspicious on some aspects of software sharing.