···@CS.CMU.EDU (Scott Fahlman) writes:
>In article <················@naggum.no> Erik Naggum <····@naggum.no> writes:
> "2. The existence of the incompatible dialects Common Lisp, EuLisp, Le-Lisp
> and Scheme (mentioned in alphabetical order).
> on the first item 2: there is no mention of any other standardization
> activity in this document, despite the existence of ANSI Common Lisp and
> IEEE Scheme. treating published standards as "incompatible dialects" is a
> rather heavy-handed propaganda move in my eyes. on item 5, I get a feeling
I think you are (EN) reading way too much into this.
Note that you are quoting a list of factors that influenced the
establishment of design goals for ISLisp, and the ISLisp effort
started before even Scheme was a standard. This sentence about
incompatible dialiects has been around pretty much from the
beginning.
> this language is the victim of yet another silly "industry vs academia"
> war, and that it is yet another propaganda move.
>No, I think that this is a silly Europe vs. US/Japan war. Le-Lisp and
>EuLisp each have some admirable features, but to mention them as
>standards on a part with CL and Scheme is just silly. Maybe it seems
>less silly if you sit in France.
Does it mention them "as standards"? It doesn't in the quote above.
Note that Kent Pitman -- the editor of the CL standard -- was the
editor of the ISLisp draft as well, so he is presumably aware of
it's contents. I forget who, these days, is the US representative
to the ISO committee that produced this draft, but he is presumably
reasonably familiar with the contents as well. I'm not saying
either of these people approves of the language in the draft,
but so far as I know no one has thought it was a serious
problem.
-- jeff