[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Where Pure Common Lisp lives

To: Scott E. Fahlman <Fahlman@C.CS.CMU.EDU>, common-lisp@SU-AI.ARPA
Subject: Where Pure Common Lisp lives
From: David C. Plummer <DCP@SCRC-QUABBIN.ARPA>
Date: Fri, 23 May 86 08:06 EDT
In-reply-to: <FAHLMAN.12208858771.BABYL@C.CS.CMU.EDU>

A nit pick on names: LOCAL is poor.  What does LOCAL: mean to somebody
in California (pick a site) running an implementation developed in the
eastern US (pick a site)?  VENDOR-EXTENSIONS: is more meaningful than
LOCAL:.  SYMBOLICS-COMMON-LISP: (SCL:) is >much< more meaningful than
LOCAL:.  I guess my question is: What is gained by agreeing on the
standard package for extensions.  I know this came up 6 weeks ago, but I
don't think the issue was closed.

References:
- Where Pure Common Lisp lives
  - From: "Scott E. Fahlman" <Fahlman@C.CS.CMU.EDU>

Prev by Date: Where Pure Common Lisp lives
Next by Date: Re: Where Pure Common Lisp lives
Previous by thread: Where Pure Common Lisp lives
Next by thread: LISP:*LOCAL-PACKAGE*
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread