Kernel Lisp Definition? [Re: POS, OOFS, CL v Scheme, etc.]

Dwight Hughes
Wed, 14 May 1997 00:16:12 -0500



| I think we need a new, but very small dialect of lisp. One simpler
| yet more reflective than CL (and CL is reflective enough to mutate into
| for example). One capable of supporting a CL implementation over the top
| or a scheme implementation.
| If we can agree that we do need a new dialect then we can stop squabbling
| over which dialect to use, and start stealing the more useful bits of
| what's around and tested, and then we can shout at each other about what
| a minimal dialect needs to support features our own favourite features.
| Anyone willing to hack up a simple (and probably broken) blueprint
| for such a beastie as they see it?
| Brian

>From initial browsing I think the EuLisp Definition version 0.99 at:
would be a good place to start. It is very clean with quite
distinct Level-0 and Level-1 definitions.

The implementation of EuLisp (version 0.92) is at: 
Not a native compiler -- compiles to bytecodes (does a bit of peephole
optimization). Has rather a lot of C code in its implementation. Seems
primarily created for easy portability. It does support threads. It
is under GPL.

(Their server takes its time answering, so be patient.)

-- Dwight