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 |