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

Re: A proposal

To: MURRAY%umass-cs.CSNet@CSNet-Relay.ARPA
Subject: Re: A proposal
From: Bobrow.pa@Xerox.COM
Date: Wed, 07 May 1986 17:53:00 -0000
Cc: common-lisp@su-ai.ARPA
In-reply-to: MURRAY@umass-cs.CSNET's message of Mon, 5 May 86 14:47 EST

I agree that a DEFSYSTEM facility is useful.  However, what its specs
should be are unclear.  We just built an experimental system** using
objects that also supports incremental changes as well as version
control.  Should facilities like these be included?  It seems that we
are far from having a good handle on what is needed.  This is to support
Dan Weinreb's contention that the system construction tool business is
still very volatile. 


 (** A copy of a short paper on defintion groups is available on
request.  Send Snail-mail address.)

Prev by Date: infix madness
Next by Date: [JAR@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU: Problems with packages]
Previous by thread: Re: A proposal
Next by thread: Why we should not try to add programming environments to the Common Lisp standard
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread