Language 'standards' for LispOS

[Dwight Hughes]

| From: Christopher J. Vogt <vogt@novia.net>

[snip snip]

| 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
differing
| 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
to
| 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,
as
| 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
to me.

-- Dwight