[no subject]

[postmaster@att-in.att.com]

Mail to `att.att.com!attmail!mhs!envoy!ics.test/pn=_test_group' alias `att!attmail!mhs!envoy!ics.test/pn=_test_group' from 'CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU!Scheme%lcs.mit.edu' failed.
The error message was:
destination unknown or forwarding disallowed
The message began:
Received: from SCF.FUNDP.AC.BE by CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU (IBM VM SMTP R1.2.2MX) with BSMTP id 7392; Sun, 28 Jan 90 15:00:31 EST
Received: by BNANDP11 (Mailer R2.02A) id 7080; Sun, 28 Jan 90 18:50:30 +0100
Date:         Sun, 28 Jan 90 02:12:33 EST
Reply-To:     Scheme%lcs.mit.edu@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU
Sender:       Scheme Programming Language <SCHEME%BNANDP11.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU>
From:         Automatic Scheme Digestifier <Scheme-Request%LCS.MIT.EDU@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU>
Subject:      Scheme Digest #284
Comments: To: Scheme@lcs.mit.edu
To:           ICSUG TEST GROUP
              <attmail!mhs!envoy!ICS.TEST/PN=_TEST_GROUP@ATT.ATT.COM>

Scheme Digest #284                             28 Jan 90  02:12:33 EST

Today's Topics:

        Scheme as a standard extension language
        Combinators & Compilation

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message-ID: <1990Jan27.222837.3997@odi.com>
Date: 27 Jan 90 22:28:37 GMT
From: Dan Weinreb <odi!dlw@uunet.uu.net>
To: scheme@mc.lcs.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Scheme as a standard extension language

It sounds like you're saying that you prefer Scheme to Common Lisp
because Scheme is "smaller", but Scheme is missing things that you
need, so you'll have to extend it.  Well, if you think about it, this
shows why Common Lisp is the size that it is: it contains a whole lot
of stuff that people have needed from time to time.  Once you put in
all the extensions to Scheme that you'll find you want to have, the
difference in size will not be as great.

When people talk about the "size of Common Lisp", whether they be
measuring the size of executable files or the reference manual, they
are really talking about the language plus a huge library of functions
that are useful to some people some of the time.

It is possible to construct a Common Lisp implementation in which an
executable doesn't pay for the parts of the library that it doesn't
use.  I have heard that various Lisp implementors, such as Lucid and
Franz and possibly others, have done work in this area, but I don't
know any of the details.  The decision of a standard extension
language for the CFI is important.  If you really want to find out the
lowdown on this whole topic, I strongly recommend you talk to the
experienced, professional Lisp implementors at such companies, and
see what they can tell you.  Of course, there are also experienced
Scheme implementors around, too, who you might want to talk to.

Of course, if you're considering an extended Scheme, you could equally
well consider a subset of Common Lisp.

Despite my role in defining Common Lisp, I do agree that Scheme has
advantages.  Its main advantage is that it's more internally clean and
simple; Common Lisp was required to maintain all kinds of
compatibility with older Lisp dialects, whereas the Scheme designers
started from a tabula rasa and worked hard on elegance and simplicity.
The only counterbalancing argument might be that Common Lisp is
becoming more of a "standard", although Scheme is also something of a
standard in its own right; I'm not sure how much this matters in the
CFI decision.

------------------------------

Message-ID: <387CZXC@cs.swarthmore.edu>
Date: 26 Jan 90 19:32:51 GMT
From: Brian Taylor <cbmvax!vu-vlsi!swatsun!taylor@rutgers.edu>
To: scheme@mc.lcs.mit.edu
Subject: Combinators & Compilation

Does anyone out there have machine readable copies of either of the following
two papers?

H.P. Barendregt, M.C.J.D. can Eekelen, J.R.W. Glauert, J.R. Kennaway,
  M.J. Plasmeijer and M.R. Sleep.
  [1986] Term graph rewriting, Report 87, Department of Computer Science,
         University of Nijmegen, and Report SYS-C87-01, School of Information
         Systems, University of East Anglia.

P.M. van den Broek, and G.G. van der Hoeven
  [1986] Combinatorgraph reduction and the Church-Rosser theorem, preprint
         INF-86-15, Department of Informatics, Twente University of
         Technology.


A condensed version of the first paper has been published, but I would like
access to the full proofs contained in the original. If anyone could send me
a copy of either of these, or suggest some way of finding paper copies in the
States, I'd greatly appreciate it.

I'd also appreciate references to any particularly valuable articles in the
literature providing a theoretical justification for the use of graph
reduction in the interpretation of combinatory logic and lambda calculus.

              Thanks in advance,
                                  Brian

 -----------------------------------------------------------------------
| Brian Taylor         |internet: taylor@cs.swarthmore.edu            |
| Swarthmore College   |bitnet:   bdt90@swarthmr.bitnet               |
| Swarthmore, PA 19081 |uucp:     ...rutgers!bpa!swatsun!taylor       |
| USA                  |                                              |
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------


--
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------
| Brian Taylor         |internet: taylor@cs.swarthmore.edu            |
| Swarthmore College   |bitnet:   bdt90@swarthmr.bitnet               |
| Swarthmore, PA 19081 |uucp:     ...rutgers!bpa!swatsun!taylor       |

------------------------------

End of Scheme Digest
********************