SPARC proposal

[MATHIS@USC-ISIF.ARPA]

Gentlemen, Thanks for your replies to my previous message.

Here is the beginning of filling out the proposal to SPARC.  What
I need you to think about is the scope of the  standard  and  the
plan  of  technical  work (what to expect when).  For most of you
skipping the rest of this message would make sense.

-- Bob Mathis






1  Identification of Proposed Project

1.1  Title

Common LISP


1.2  Proposer(s)

Robert F. Mathis, 9712 Ceralene Drive, Fairfax, VA 22032,
(703)425-5923, on behalf of the Common LISP Community.

The Common LISP Community is an informal group of people who are
implmenting and using Common LISP and who correspond with each
other over the ARPA Net.  They occasionally meet as they did in
Boston, December 9-11, 1985.  At that meeting they decided that a
national and international standards effort was appropriate and
endorsed Robert Mathis to be the leader and organizer of that
effort.


1.3  Date Submitted

February 1, 1986


2  Justification of Proposed Standard

2.1  Needs

LISP is the second oldest programming language still in currentuse. During its life numerous extensions and incompatable
versions have been tried. In 1982, an effort was begun under the
auspecies of the Spice Project at Carnegie-Mellon University and
sponsored by DARPA to define a new commonly acceptable version of
LISP. The resulting book Common LISP: The Language by Guy Steele,
                         â??â??â??â??â??â??â??â??â??â??â??â??â??â??â??â??â??â??â??â??â??â??â??â??â??               
Jr. has received world wide acceptance. MACLISP, ZETALISP,
SCHEME, INTERLISP, SPICE LISP, S-1 LISP, NIL (New Implementation
LISP), "Standard" LISP, and Portable "Standard" LISP have all
been considered and features incorporated as appropriate.


2.2  Recommended Scope of Standard


2.3  Existing Practice in Area of Proposed Standard

Most of the LISP oriented suppliers (both hardware and software)
are moving toward Common LISP, either as their principle version
of LISP or as an option. DARPA and other agencies in the DoD are
insisting on Common LISP as the version of LISP to be used on
their projects.


2.4  Expected Stability of Proposed Standard with Respect to Current

Quoting from the Introduction" to Common LISP: The Language, "It
                                  â??â??â??â??â??â??â??â??â??â??â??â??â??â??â??â??â??â??â??â??â??â??â??â??â??     
is intended that Common LISP will change only slowly and with due
deliberation. The various dialects that are supersets of Common
LISP may serve as laboratories within which to test language
extensions, but such extensions will be added to Common LISP only
after careful examination and experimentation." (p. 3)


3  Description of Proposed Project

3.1  Definitions of Concepts and Special Terms (if any)


3.2  Expected Relationship with Approved X3 Reference Models


3.3  Recommended Program of Work

3.3.1  Base Documents


3.3.2  Time/Milestone Schedule


3.3.3  Potential Participants

Some leaders in the Common LISP Community have already been
identified who are willing to serve: John McCarthy, Stanford
(inventor of Lisp); Guy Steele, Thinking Machines (author of
Common LISP: The Language); Scott Fahlman, CMU; Dick Gabriel,
â??â??â??â??â??â??â??â??â??â??â??â??â??â??â??â??â??â??â??â??â??â??â??â??â??                                    
Lucid; Dave Moon, Symbolics; Steve Squires, DARPA; Ron Ohlander,
USC-ISI; and Bob Mathis, Private Consultant. Other people we also
expect to be involved include: Danny Bobrow, Xerox; Martin Griss,
H-P; Jonathan Rees, MIT; Jerome Chailloux, INRIA; and Masayuki
Ida, Aoyama Gakuin University. We have not identified anyone
appropriate in Britain, West Germany, or other countries.


3.4  Resources -- Individuals and Organizations Competent in Subject


3.5  Recommended X3 Development Technical Committee (Existing or New)


3.6  Anticipated Frequency and Duration of Meetings


3.7  Target Date for dpANS to X3 (Milestone 10)


3.8  Estimated Useful Life of Standard


4  Implementation Impacts

4.1  Impact on Existing User Practices and Investments


4.2  Impact on Supplier Products and Support


4.3  Techniques and Costs for Compliance Verification


4.4  Legal Considerations


5  Closely Related Standards Activities

5.1  Existing Standards


5.2  X3 Standards Development Projects


5.3  X3/SPARC Study Groups


5.4  Other Related Domestic Standards Efforts


5.5  ISO Standards Development Projects


5.6  Other Related International Standards Development Projects














5.7  Recommendations for Close Liaison