[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
a standardization proposal
- To: LOOSEMORE@UTAH-20.ARPA
- Subject: a standardization proposal
- From: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Date: Wed, 4 Jun 86 17:14 EST
- Cc: common-lisp@SU-AI.ARPA
- Sender: mike@a
Date: Wed 4 Jun 86 11:20:28-MDT
From: SANDRA <LOOSEMORE@UTAH-20.ARPA>
As a solution to this, I would like to see things in Common Lisp divided
into two distinct categories: (1) things that *every* implementation
*must* provide to call itself "Common Lisp"; and (2) things that an
implementation need not provide, but for which a standardized interface is
desirable. Moreover, I would like to see things in category (2) given
standardized names which can be present in *features*, so that you can
readily tell whether or not the implementation supports that feature.
I believe that there was a similar proposal to break the language up
into a "core" plus various modules around at the time of the Swiss Cheese
edition of the manual, but it was removed for lack of interest. Are
people still of the opinion that this is a useless idea, or is there
more motivation for it now that we have a bit more experience with the
I think this is a good idea.
I have heard that in Europe there is sentiment to have a
"core" common lisp and several rings round it to add functionality.
This is in reaction to all the manufacturers having their own dialect
of "foobar-Common-Lisp", none of which can really claim to be since
there is no real agreement other than a vague similarity to something
described in CLtL.
Gold Hill Computers