[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
dlw's portability semantics
- To: common-lisp@su-ai
- Subject: dlw's portability semantics
- From: Kim.fateman at Berkeley
- Date: Thu, 02 Sep 1982 23:50:00 -0000
Of course portability has many dimensions. I thought that CL
was supposed to refrain from gratuitous incompatibilities with
maclisp, interlisp, zetalisp, ... . The purpose of this is presumably
to allow some previously working code to be moved to a CL system.
I would think that (regardless of the definition of LOOP in CL),
an interlisp LOOP (or FOR, or whatever...)package would be useful.
Did you take umbrage at this notion, dlw?