[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Package for exactly CLtL and nothing else
- To: COMMON-LISP@SU-AI
- Subject: Package for exactly CLtL and nothing else
- From: Rem@IMSSS
- Date: Mon, 10 Mar 1986 15:25:00 -0000
I agree with all the people who want some package with an agreed-upon name
to be exactly CLtL and nothing else, because it makes benchmarking easier,
you just map down the package to verify every function is there and nothing
else there, and having done that gross count you then proceed with detailed
testing of each and every function in that package.
As to its name, that's unclear. SInce we're liable to have different versions
of CLtL every so years as we improve the specification, either LISP or CLTL
is probably a bad name, although CLTL86 would be a good name for this year's
standard. If CLTL86 happened to be identical to LISP on some systems and
not on other systems, I wouldn't mind. The documentation for that system
should say what packages are available beyond CLTL86 and what is in them.
If the exactly-CLTL package were year-numbered, it would be possible for
one implementation to provide several different years of standard at the
same time, and portable code could use exactly the package it was written for
without incompatible changes from year to year goofing it up, and there'd
be a graceful period of overlap instead of a flag day when a given vendor's
implementation switches years (or two incompatible LISP environments where
the poor user can't mix usage of the two).
Therefore I propose that as soon as CLtL is absolutely firm, we stamp it
with a yearmark and establish the package name to contain that version;
debate on this proposal invited...