From: John Fraser
Subject: Core Forms of Common Lisp
Date: 
Message-ID: <eKoma.14549$Zx.10807@nwrddc01.gnilink.net>
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_000A_01C30209.2A00E9D0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I know this is an implementation specific question, but ...

What are the core normal forms of Common Lisp (theoretically)?  What =
forms can be used to implement the rest of the language?

Thanks,
=20
John

------=_NextPart_000_000A_01C30209.2A00E9D0
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2723.2500" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3DVerdana>I know this is an implementation specific =
question, but=20
...</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DVerdana></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DVerdana>What are the core normal forms of Common Lisp=20
(theoretically)?&nbsp; What forms can be used to implement the rest of =
the=20
language?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DVerdana></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DVerdana>Thanks,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DVerdana>&nbsp;<BR>John</FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>

------=_NextPart_000_000A_01C30209.2A00E9D0--
From: Christopher C. Stacy
Subject: Re: Core Forms of Common Lisp
Date: 
Message-ID: <u1y057n8b.fsf@dtpq.com>
>>>>> On Mon, 14 Apr 2003 02:08:10 GMT, John Fraser ("John") writes:
 John> I know this is an implementation specific question, but ...
 John> What are the core normal forms of Common Lisp (theoretically)?
 John> What forms can be used to implement the rest of the language?

If by "normal forms" you mean irreducible forms, please be aware
that Lisp is not really about Lambda Calculus.  Anyway, the set
of functions are required to implement all of Common Lisp is an
interesting question, but I'd be surprised if anyone has made a
good theoretical study of this.  Different Common Lisp implementors
have made different selections, not based on a theory of elegance.

Bear in mind that, for one thing, you will need a way to create 
and manipulate many data types.  Your question is a very different
exercise from some hypothetical "Lisp" language that only has conses
and symbols.  I suspect you'll have need of certain functions that 
are not present in the language - meaning that there is no "core"
language with which the rest can be implemented.

There have been proposals for a "core" version of Common Lisp
that would be a subset of the language. But those "core" subsets 
were not for implementing the rest of the language, but rather
for writing code that would compatible with other Lisp languages.
From: john
Subject: Re: Core Forms of Common Lisp
Date: 
Message-ID: <a3db0d59.0304141731.1d5ff1fd@posting.google.com>
······@dtpq.com (Christopher C. Stacy) wrote in message news:<·············@dtpq.com>...
> >>>>> On Mon, 14 Apr 2003 02:08:10 GMT, John Fraser ("John") writes:
>  John> I know this is an implementation specific question, but ...
>  John> What are the core normal forms of Common Lisp (theoretically)?
>  John> What forms can be used to implement the rest of the language?
> 
> If by "normal forms" you mean irreducible forms, please be aware
> that Lisp is not really about Lambda Calculus.  Anyway, the set
> of functions are required to implement all of Common Lisp is an
> interesting question, but I'd be surprised if anyone has made a
> good theoretical study of this.  Different Common Lisp implementors
> have made different selections, not based on a theory of elegance.

Yes, that was what I meant.  Sorry about that, I learned Lisp via
Scheme which has a core reducable set of operations.  Excluding OS
system details and interaction that make a language useful for things
other than theory.

> Bear in mind that, for one thing, you will need a way to create 
> and manipulate many data types.  Your question is a very different
> exercise from some hypothetical "Lisp" language that only has conses
> and symbols.  I suspect you'll have need of certain functions that 
> are not present in the language - meaning that there is no "core"
> language with which the rest can be implemented.

Right there has to be some system level interfaces.  I think by core I
meant the language contructs themselves without external
conciderations.  Again, a scheme altered mind at work.

> There have been proposals for a "core" version of Common Lisp
> that would be a subset of the language. But those "core" subsets 
> were not for implementing the rest of the language, but rather
> for writing code that would compatible with other Lisp languages.

Thanks!
From: Pierpaolo BERNARDI
Subject: Re: Core Forms of Common Lisp
Date: 
Message-ID: <rWsma.13569$T34.439303@news2.tin.it>
"John Fraser" <···············@verizon.net> ha scritto nel messaggio ·························@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...

> What are the core normal forms of Common Lisp (theoretically)?  
>What forms can be used to implement the rest of the language?

This article is relevant:

ACM Lisp Pointers V, 4 (Oct/Dec 1992), 11-20.
Metacircular Semantics for Common Lisp Special Forms.
Henry G. Baker

http://citeseer.nj.nec.com/baker92metacircular.html

P.
From: john
Subject: Re: Core Forms of Common Lisp
Date: 
Message-ID: <a3db0d59.0304141725.1cda553b@posting.google.com>
"Pierpaolo BERNARDI" <··················@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<······················@news2.tin.it>...

Thanks, I'll take a look.

> This article is relevant:
> 
> ACM Lisp Pointers V, 4 (Oct/Dec 1992), 11-20.
> Metacircular Semantics for Common Lisp Special Forms.
> Henry G. Baker
> 
> http://citeseer.nj.nec.com/baker92metacircular.html
> 
> P.
comp.lang.lisp / 2003 / apr