Language 'standards' for LispOS
Sat, 17 May 1997 18:05:52 -0500
| From: Christopher J. Vogt <firstname.lastname@example.org>
| Not surprisingly, Henry has lots of good suggestions, and has summarized
| them eloquently. I didn't edit out the above paragraph because I'm going
| to refer to it obliquely. I have mentioned in previous postings my
| believe in CL compatibility. This is important, I think, in two
| ways. Firstly, I want to *easily* port CL code written on other machines
| to LispOS and Secondly, I want to easily port code written under LispOS
| other machines. As long as we have a CL package for example that adhered
| to the standard CL, I think my two desires could be met.
| So, I think it is grand to have a "simpler" Lisp that is a subset of CL,
| well as a more "complex" lisp that is a superset of CL.
The "simpler" Lisp need not necessarily be a strict "subset" of CL, though
that might make life a little simpler in some ways - it could represent
more of an *intermediate code* that CL could compile down to.
Actually, if I understand correctly, what is being proposed is that we
drastically revamp the primitives available to us, then re-implement CL
on *those* -- in addition we will have a kernel Lisp which directly and
completely supports and uses these same primitives. Sounds like a winner