CLIM mail archive



   Date: Fri, 6 May 94 09:22:34 CDT

      Date: Fri, 06 May 1994 09:37:36 -0400
      From: Jeff Morrill <jmorrill@BBN.COM>

      I also believe that vendor-supplied extensions are a good thing.
      I would only ask that the "clim" package be sacrosanct, much like
      the ANSI "common-lisp" package.  It is good hygiene to put new
      symbols in other packages, "clim-extensions" for example.
      The keyword :menu-bar wouldn't apply, of course, but the class
      name MENU-BAR would.

   I agree with the need to distinguish portable capabilities from
   extensions.  The only question is whether CLIM has matured
   sufficiently to make that distinction clearly.  What we would need is
   a single, up-to-date document to which the major vendors have agreed
   to conform.  My understanding is that the CLIM 2.0 spec was meant to
   be that document, but I don't think it's been kept up to date.

I have a reasonable up-to-date set of spec sources, mostly having
editorial fixes over the old CLIM 2.0 spec.  There are some changes
that needed to be made when CER and I discovered there were things in
the spec that were just brain-dead (for which I must take the blame).


Main Index | Thread Index