Re: An Acceptable Lisp
- From: pjb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Pascal J. Bourguignon)
- Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2008 09:17:47 +0200
Matthew D Swank <akopa.gmane.poster@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
Well the desire for a kernel/library separation is mostly a pragmatic one
in my case. With a correct reference implementation of most of common
lisp as portable library, the leaning curve and time investment to
implement the kernel and bootstrap a proper lisp would not be so steep.
Why "would"? "Is"!
Also the explicit kernel/library separation would hopefully encourage
more language experimentation, with the kernel basically providing a
common runtime in which these lisps can coexist.
The Common Lisp kernel is specified in CLHS. Mind all the operators
marked "Special Operators". All the rest is library macros or functions.
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
READ THIS BEFORE OPENING PACKAGE: According to certain suggested
versions of the Grand Unified Theory, the primary particles
constituting this product may decay to nothingness within the next
four hundred million years.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: An Acceptable Lisp
- From: akopa
- Re: An Acceptable Lisp
- References:
- An Acceptable Lisp
- From: Vsevolod
- Re: An Acceptable Lisp
- From: Tamas K Papp
- Re: An Acceptable Lisp
- From: Tamas K Papp
- Re: An Acceptable Lisp
- From: Vsevolod
- Re: An Acceptable Lisp
- From: Matthew D Swank
- Re: An Acceptable Lisp
- From: Kaz Kylheku
- Re: An Acceptable Lisp
- From: Matthew D Swank
- An Acceptable Lisp
- Prev by Date: Re: An Acceptable Lisp
- Next by Date: Re: An Acceptable Lisp
- Previous by thread: Re: An Acceptable Lisp
- Next by thread: Re: An Acceptable Lisp
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|