Scheme vs. CommonLisp vs. the World
Tue, 13 May 1997 07:38 -0400
Date: Mon, 12 May 1997 19:44 EDT
From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Henry G. Baker)
> I think I can count on my hands how many people think
> complex numbers should be retained in a new CL.
I agree that complex numbers should _not_ be part of 'basic'/primitive
Lisp, but it should be possible to program them as a library package
on top. Ditto for bignums.
You might want to reconsider on bignums. A single large file on a big disk these
days overflows 32 bits in byte length.
(Ditto for multidimensional arrays and
Indeed, one of my complaints in 'Equal Rights' was the inability in CL
to define a new _functional_ type and have it compare correctly. All
of the CL defstruct and CLOS types were forced by the CL standard to
be mutable (nonfunctional) types.
www/ftp directory URL: