[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
- To: CSVAX.fateman at BERKELEY
- Subject: Re: transportability
- From: Gumby@MIT-AI
- Date: Thu ,18 Sep 81 23:45:04 EDT
- Cc: INFO-LISPM at MIT-AI
Date: Sat ,19 Sep 81 00:01:55 EDT
From: CSVAX.fateman at Berkeley
Subject: not having read the common-lisp manual,
Cc: CSVAX.jkf@Berkeley, CSVAX.sklower@Berkeley
What this means is no one is restricted from defining and using Gumbies
some X-lisp, but if Gumbies have no counterpart in common-lisp, it
MAY happen that the programs using Gumbies are not transportable.
This is totally reasonable. In fact I thought that Griss had done
this type of thing.
I don't think it's reasonable; I LIKE being transportable. At least, nobody has complained
to me yet...
Seriously, I think having three different syntaxes for (for instance) the "LOOP"
macro sucks. From the compiler's point of view, it may be alright (with some sort
of style declaration as is used in Franz Lisp) but at top-level it really loses. Must
the programmer remember which flavour of Lisp is he currently using?