Re: menu-bar

• To: "William M. York" <york@parc.xerox.com>
• Subject: Re: menu-bar
• From: miller@cs.rochester.edu
• Date: Thu, 5 May 1994 18:55:37 -0400
• Cc: colin@franz.com, ncramer@BBN.COM, abramson@verdi.sra.com, clim@BBN.COM
• In-Reply-To: <94May5.154016pdt.32390@sparkie.parc.xerox.com>
• References: <9405050032.AA09414@vapor.Franz.COM> <94May5.154016pdt.32390@sparkie.parc.xerox.com>

>>>>> "William" == William M York <york@parc.xerox.com> writes:

    William> Of course, I don't have to tell you where I stand on these
    William> issues, but I thought that I'd raise the point as a way of
    William> publicly checking the state of things.  I think everyone
    William> loses in the long run when individual vendors extend
    William> outside the spec, even when those extensions are good ideas
    William> in and of themselves.

I disagree with this completely. If that had been the attitude with CL,
then nobody would have any support for Defsystem, Multiprocessing, or
FFI (to name three :-), at all without "ANSI permission".

Vendors should be able (need to be able) to provide upward compatible
extensions if for no other reason than to support their customers. So
long as these are clearly identified as non-portable extensions, I don't
see a problem, and they provide a valuable testbed for future portable
language extensions.

Regards,
Brad Miller
--
Brad Miller                    miller@cs.rochester.edu
Computer Science Dept.         http://www.cs.rochester.edu/users/staff/miller/
University of Rochester        716-275-1118 (v) 461-2018 (f)
Rochester, NY 14627-0226

• Re: menu-bar
• From: Jeff Morrill <jmorrill@BBN.COM>
• menu-bar
• From: Scott McKay <swm@harlequin.com>
• Re: menu-bar
• From: "William M. York" <york@parc.xerox.com>

• Re: menu-bar
• From: Colin Meldrum <colin@franz.com>
• Re: menu-bar
• From: "William M. York" <york@parc.xerox.com>

• Prev: Re: menu-bar
• Next: Re: menu-bar
• Index: CLIM Mailing list (1-Jun-94 to 30-Jun-95)
• Thread: CLIM Mailing list Index (1-Jun-94 to 30-Jun-95)