[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
dlw's portability semantics
- To: Kim.fateman at UCB-C70, common-lisp at su-ai
- Subject: dlw's portability semantics
- From: Daniel L. Weinreb <dlw at SCRC-TENEX at MIT-MC>
- Date: Tue, 07 Sep 1982 20:39:00 -0000
- In-reply-to: The message of 2 Sep 82 22:50-EDT from Kim.fateman at Berkeley
Of course, making it easier to move previously working non-CL code into
a CL implementation is a useful thing. If you want to propose a way to
allow the running of programs with incompatible definitions of LOOP, or
DO, or CAR, then we could have some such facility. It has nothing to do
with LOOP, though.