MIT 6.001

[Ray Dillinger]

>  But, for the LispOS purposes, we had already "agreed" that Lisp
>meant Common Lisp in this list.

Interesting.  I'm looking over the posts I've made to see
whether anything I've said has been likely to be misunderstood
given that assumption which I wasn't aware of. 

I don't see anything -- I almost always use the word LISP with
an indefinite article, or give some specific language as an
example of LISP -- not much room for misinterpretation.  

Thanks for clearing that point up...  now I need to go re-read 
a bunch of things that I thought were awfully narrow statements
about a broad class of languages -- they may make more sense
now.  

Is it the general consensus that Common Lisp, or an extremely
close cousin of it, is the desired implementation/programming
language of LispOS?  Or is this a point on which there has been
little consensus?  I myself prefer to use Scheme semantics, plus
a set of Common Lisp'ish extensions for things which are both
essential and too grotty for the Scheme standard to have dealt
with.

				Ray