Since we are currently discussing some MOP peculiarities: I would be
interested in the original MOP specification, as was rejected in
1987/1988 (?), for historical curiosity. Does anyone happen to know
where I can get it?
Pascal
--
ECOOP 2004 Workshops - Oslo, Norway
*1st European Lisp and Scheme Workshop, June 13*
http://www.cs.uni-bonn.de/~costanza/lisp-ecoop/
*2nd Post-Java Workshop, June 14*
http://prog.vub.ac.be/~wdmeuter/PostJava04/
Pascal Costanza <········@web.de> writes:
> Since we are currently discussing some MOP peculiarities: I would be
> interested in the original MOP specification, as was rejected in
> 1987/1988 (?), for historical curiosity. Does anyone happen to know
> where I can get it?
You may search old issues of "Lisp and Symbolic Computation" or "Lisp
Pointers". Tables of contents of the latter are available at ACM's
site, I don't know about the former.
Paolo
--
Why Lisp? http://alu.cliki.net/RtL%20Highlight%20Film
Paolo Amoroso wrote:
> Pascal Costanza <········@web.de> writes:
>
>>Since we are currently discussing some MOP peculiarities: I would be
>>interested in the original MOP specification, as was rejected in
>>1987/1988 (?), for historical curiosity. Does anyone happen to know
>>where I can get it?
>
> You may search old issues of "Lisp and Symbolic Computation" or "Lisp
> Pointers". Tables of contents of the latter are available at ACM's
> site, I don't know about the former.
Thanks, but this doesn't help. The January 1989 issue of "Lisp and
Symbolic Computation" contains parts I and II of the CLOS specification,
and that's the same material that was also published as part of CLtL2.
The MOP specification was part III, and that's what I am looking for.
Pascal
--
1st European Lisp and Scheme Workshop
June 13 - Oslo, Norway - co-located with ECOOP 2004
http://www.cs.uni-bonn.de/~costanza/lisp-ecoop/
Pascal Costanza wrote:
>>> Since we are currently discussing some MOP peculiarities: I would be
>>> interested in the original MOP specification, as was rejected in
>>> 1987/1988 (?),
"Rejected" may be too strong a word. The drafters of CLOS suggest
stongly that parts 1 & 2 be adopted without changes, and that part 3
(the MOP) not be adopted. They felt that it was too soon to standardize
a MOP until more experience was developed implementing and using it.
The word "rejected" suggests that the committee felt it was bad or
inappropriate work, but this was certainly not the case.
It's too bad in a way, because although the MOP does indeed need a
little cleanup here or there, 15 years has passed and there has been
no progress towards establishing it as a standard. I don't think it
is really important to the CL community that the MOP be standardized --
not compared to other needs -- but the MOP is such a supreme pinnacle
of computer languages that it should be mapped with some official
codification.
>>> for historical curiosity. Does anyone happen to know
>>> where I can get it?
I'm sure I have the original X3J13 dead tree copy somewhere, but I'm
unsure if I could actually find it. Next week I'll take a quick look.
Ping me if you don't hear further.
Steven M. Haflich wrote:
> Pascal Costanza wrote:
>
>>>> Since we are currently discussing some MOP peculiarities: I would be
>>>> interested in the original MOP specification, as was rejected in
>>>> 1987/1988 (?),
>
>
> "Rejected" may be too strong a word. The drafters of CLOS suggest
> stongly that parts 1 & 2 be adopted without changes, and that part 3
> (the MOP) not be adopted. They felt that it was too soon to standardize
> a MOP until more experience was developed implementing and using it.
> The word "rejected" suggests that the committee felt it was bad or
> inappropriate work, but this was certainly not the case.
OK, agreed.
> It's too bad in a way, because although the MOP does indeed need a
> little cleanup here or there, 15 years has passed and there has been
> no progress towards establishing it as a standard. I don't think it
> is really important to the CL community that the MOP be standardized --
> not compared to other needs -- but the MOP is such a supreme pinnacle
> of computer languages that it should be mapped with some official
> codification.
Yes, I strongly agree. I think the MOP is one of the most important
achievements in computer science.
>>>> for historical curiosity. Does anyone happen to know
>>>> where I can get it?
>
> I'm sure I have the original X3J13 dead tree copy somewhere, but I'm
> unsure if I could actually find it. Next week I'll take a quick look.
This would be great. Maybe I can manage to scan it and make it available
as a PDF afterwards.
Pascal
--
1st European Lisp and Scheme Workshop
June 13 - Oslo, Norway - co-located with ECOOP 2004
http://www.cs.uni-bonn.de/~costanza/lisp-ecoop/
Pascal Costanza wrote:
>
> Steven M. Haflich wrote:
>> I'm sure I have the original X3J13 dead tree copy somewhere, but I'm
>> unsure if I could actually find it. Next week I'll take a quick look.
>
> This would be great. Maybe I can manage to scan it and make it available
> as a PDF afterwards.
Finally on Friday I remembered to check through my saved paper. I did
find the orginal 1987 position papers which were the material out of
which the CLOS committee draftedr the three-part spec, but I didn't
locate that 1989 draft itself.
I still have some more places to check. Some of these paper stacks have
been serving many years as a plant stand on top of a file cabinet, giving
a favorite plant a better view of window, so I may still locate it, modulo
water damage over the years.
Pascal Costanza <········@web.de> wrote:
> Since we are currently discussing some MOP peculiarities: I would be
> interested in the original MOP specification, as was rejected in
> 1987/1988 (?), for historical curiosity.
Are you looking for something different than
http://www.alu.org/mop/index.html ?
Bruno
Bruno Haible wrote:
> Pascal Costanza <········@web.de> wrote:
>
>>Since we are currently discussing some MOP peculiarities: I would be
>>interested in the original MOP specification, as was rejected in
>>1987/1988 (?), for historical curiosity.
>
> Are you looking for something different than
> http://www.alu.org/mop/index.html ?
Yes. That link contains a much later version of what I am looking for.
The various bits and pieces I have read about the early MOP spec
strongly suggest that it was very different from what was published in
the AMOP book.
Pascal
--
1st European Lisp and Scheme Workshop
June 13 - Oslo, Norway - co-located with ECOOP 2004
http://www.cs.uni-bonn.de/~costanza/lisp-ecoop/