[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
- To: CL-Steering@SU-AI.ARPA
- Subject: Foreigners
- From: MATHIS@USC-ISIF.ARPA
- Date: 30 May 1986 12:38-PDT
- Cc: Mathis@USC-ISIF.ARPA
- Sender: MATHIS@USC-ISIF.ARPA
I was a little worried when Scott used this subject heading; I
thought he might be taking about other language type people.
I thought we had all converged on Ida. The only question seemed
to be how to bring him in -- direct personal invitation or
slection by the Japanese committee. I'll go with whichever Scott
decides. We might offer him at least a provisional place until
the Japanese selection is done.
I hope something positive comes of my trip next week. I will be
talking primarily about procedural and organizational issues.
The point that I have noticed in the discussions on this subset
or minimal set or core language is approximately --
standards for subset languages motivated by machine capacities
are not very useful (eg, Minimal BASIC and the PL/I subset);
there is a strong desire in the Lisp community for minimal
logical basis for the language (who else uses "pure" as a
descriptor?), but practicality is the strongest motivator in the
standardization effort (people are using Common Lisp and what we
need now is a common, standardized definition of that). Everyone
seems interested in discussing a minimal core basis for Lisp, but
that should not delay the currently needed standard for what is
generally understand as Common Lisp.