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

For the record: an exchange between me and Fateman

Date: Fri, 21 Mar 86 10:37:29 PST
From: fateman@dali.berkeley.edu (Richard Fateman)
Message-Id: <8603211837.AA17436@dali.berkeley.edu>
To: gls@aquinas.think.com
Subject: Re:  Standardization
Cc: fateman@dali.berkeley.edu, hilfingr@kim.berkeley.edu,

I think we've got to stop talking about Common LISP as a single thing.
Common LISP '84 is more nearly a single thing, and that is just fine.

Some standards committees endorse de facto standards (e.g. the width
of 1/2" mag tape); some other committees create a new synthesis of some sort 
to encourage production of improved technology (e.g. IEEE floating point);
some committees produce revisions every n years of
a ``new'' language (X3J3 ?); some committees produce nothing.

I don't think people would abandon CL because of an expectation of
a new (but similar) language every 10 years. There are, of course
some people using Fortran '66... or Fortran IV.

The only way to keep CL static is to define it as CL'84, or to have
a committee that produces nothing.  In fact, I thought that the principle
behind the standardization effort was exactly that: If we don't have
an ANSI activity, the French will define ISO LISP, and we would see
the US gov't abandon CL.  If we have a non-terminating ANSI activity,
the French will not have any effect.  (Do you think they would call
it France Lisp? ;-)

P.S., with April 1st coming around, do you think we should prepare a
short text on proposed additions to the language?  Apropos the #; controversy,
how about associating meanings to 
or perhaps
#-+flame ?
or #:}>=%=  which viewed at 90 degrees could be interpreted as a roaring 20's
 mustachio'd gentleman with slicked hair, and bow tie...