[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Readable Hash-Tables
- To: ELIOT@cs.umass.edu
- Subject: Re: Readable Hash-Tables
- From: Brad Miller <miller@ACORN.CS.ROCHESTER.EDU>
- Date: Thu, 19 May 88 15:11 EDT
- Cc: common-lisp@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
- In-reply-to: <8805191539.AA07394@cayuga.cs.rochester.edu>
- Organization: University of Rochester, Department of Computer Science
- Phone: 716-275-1118
- Postal-address: 610 CS Building, Comp Sci Dept., U. Rochester, Rochester NY 14627
- Reply-to: miller@CS.ROCHESTER.EDU
- Sender: miller@CS.ROCHESTER.EDU
Date: Wed, 18 May 88 12:35 EDT
I was aware of this, and it is the principal reason why DESCRIBE *should*
be defined in terms of a portable standard. I think Common Lisp
should be commited to providing user-level support for its concepts.
I consider this as part of the criteria for being complete. By
stipulating that DESCRIBE can be written in portable CL and then
extending the language to make this true we will have satisfied one
of the requirements for making CL complete. More generally I believe
that Common Lisp should be powerful enough to implement a portable
I certainly concur with this. Perhaps the mythical portable code walker can
be justified as part of the standard this way too...
BTW: is it still mythical, or has anyone actually *got* one? I'd use it...
Brad Miller U. Rochester Comp Sci Dept.