[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Error Proposal #8 available

A new error proposal (and matching implementation) was distributed to
a limited number of people in hardcopy at the Lisp conference. If you
missed that distribution, or if you wanted it in machine-readable form,
you can now pick it up from any of the following places:

 Machine         File                                    Remarks

 MIT-AI.ARPA     COMMON;EPROP8 TEXT                      Proposal
                 COMMON;EPROP8 LISP                      Implementation

                 PRVA:<SLISP.STANDARD>ERROR-PROP-8.LISP  Implementation

 SU-AI.ARPA      EPROP8.TXT[COM,LSP]                     Proposal
                 EPROP8.LSP[COM,LSP]                     Implementation

 Symbolics       S:>kmp>cl>error-proposal-8.text         Proposal
  (internal)     S:>kmp>cl>error-proposal-8.lisp         Implementation

A couple of important notes:

 The implementation I'm distributing is not used in any real implementation
 right now. It was created specifically to help illustrate the features of
 this proposal.

 The implementation was originally written to match proposal #6, which
 was an intermediate draft that no one saw. I'm pretty sure that it matched
 that spec pretty closly. It took me about 8hrs to write. Rather than spend
 another 8hrs coding an implementation to match proposal #8, I spent a half
 hour making the old code match the new proposal. If I goofed anywhere, I
 apologize in advance. Please report any bugs you notice.

 The spec is still very much in transition. I've gotten a lot of very useful
 comments back already since the Lisp conference. This implementation will
 give you a flavor of what we're aiming at, but the details are still much
 subject to change and I caution everyone against taking this code and trying
 to prematurely tie a product to it in any way.

 The implementation is not the proposal. It's just illustrative. Only
 the spec is the proposal. If you have doubts about any wording (or lack
 thereof) in the proposal, please pass them along to the list. It's 
 important that all the ambiguities be hammered out of the spec. The
 implementation is intended to serve as a guide in helping you form 
 impressions but it will not in any way serve as a standard.

 Let's proceed as if we have no object standard. If one becomes firm 
 enough that we are able to incorporate it, we can do so at that time.
 I don't think it's essential at this point in the discussion.

By the way, the most recent proposal distributed to everyone before 
this was #5. There was no version #6 or #7 that got distributed, so
if you feel like you missed something, you probably didn't.

Oh, and if you have network problems which prevent you from using FTP,
please send me mail requesting that I try to post these things either
via electronic or hardcopy mail.