[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
I agree with the changes that Scott has proposed to Mathis.
Thank you. One minor point: I think that, realistically, the
revision cycle time is more likely to be three years than two.
I want to point out that the wording in the introduction to the
Common Lisp book was very carefully constructed: it says that
*part* of the work on the book was done *in conjunction with*
the Spice project, and that the Spice project happens to be
sponsored by DARPA. What is not stated explicitly is that at
no time during the initial development of Common Lisp was there
any explicit contract from DARPA to develop the definition of
Common Lisp. There was of course a great deal of informal
and indirect encouragement, which was very important; but I would
say it is not correct to say that DARPA "sponsored" Common Lisp.
It's not necessarily that DARPA would not have done so, but merely
that we didn't ask for money directly.