Re: An Acceptable Lisp

On Aug 28, 2:17 am, p...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Pascal J. Bourguignon)
wrote:


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.


A kernel ends up being both more and less than the special forms. Is
the list of special forms minimal? What about basic data types; what
about the type system itself? How much of the macro system has to be
there?

With just the special forms we can't even do any i/o. As for all the
rest, there is PCL, and Pitman's condition system implementation.
That is a lot, but there could also be most of cltl1 if we knew where
the bottom was.


Matt
.