Hi,
According to
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/comp.lang.scheme/msg/4dacfb4836be4ab5
today is the tenth birthday of the official ANSI Common Lisp standard.
Let's drink, laugh and sing! ;)
Pascal
--
The big bang way only works for god, everybody else has to use
evolution. - David Moon
Pascal Costanza wrote:
> Hi,
>
> According to
> http://groups-beta.google.com/group/comp.lang.scheme/msg/4dacfb4836be4ab5
> today is the tenth birthday of the official ANSI Common Lisp standard.
>
> Let's drink, laugh and sing! ;)
Happy birthday Common Lisp!
<lifts-glass>
....and lets pour a sip on the sidewalk for all the great lisps that
have passed. lest we forget. :)
drewc
Pascal Costanza <········@web.de> writes:
> Hi,
>
> According to
> http://groups-beta.google.com/group/comp.lang.scheme/msg/4dacfb4836be4ab5
> today is the tenth birthday of the official ANSI Common Lisp standard.
>
> Let's drink, laugh and sing! ;)
Has there been much discussion on add / changing it? It seems that
some other "ANSI languages" have been updated. Is there a need for
this to occur for CL?
--
David Magda <dmagda at ee.ryerson.ca>, http://www.magda.ca/
Because the innovator has for enemies all those who have done well under
the old conditions, and lukewarm defenders in those who may do well
under the new. -- Niccolo Machiavelli, _The Prince_, Chapter VI
David Magda wrote:
>
> Has there been much discussion on add / changing it? It seems that
> some other "ANSI languages" have been updated. Is there a need for
> this to occur for CL?
>
> --
> David Magda <dmagda at ee.ryerson.ca>, http://www.magda.ca/
> Because the innovator has for enemies all those who have done well under
> the old conditions, and lukewarm defenders in those who may do well
> under the new. -- Niccolo Machiavelli, _The Prince_, Chapter VI
You answered your own question with the quote in your .sig
Cameron MacKinnon <··········@clearspot.net> writes:
> David Magda wrote:
>> Has there been much discussion on add / changing it? It seems that
>> some other "ANSI languages" have been updated. Is there a need for
>> this to occur for CL?
>> --
>> David Magda <dmagda at ee.ryerson.ca>, http://www.magda.ca/
>> Because the innovator has for enemies all those who have done well under
>> the old conditions, and lukewarm defenders in those who may do well
>> under the new. -- Niccolo Machiavelli, _The Prince_, Chapter VI
>
> You answered your own question with the quote in your .sig
So I suppose you're the one who made the monetary and administrative
cost a non-issue. Thanks for the generosity in both time and money!
--
Rahul Jain
·····@nyct.net
Professional Software Developer, Amateur Quantum Mechanicist
Rahul Jain wrote:
> So I suppose you're the one who made the monetary and administrative
> cost a non-issue. Thanks for the generosity in both time and money!
"I've pointed out that the IETF's RFCs and Scheme's SRFIs represent
inexpensive, incremental, workable processes."
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/comp.lang.lisp/msg/b53a36b91520e305
Cameron MacKinnon <··········@clearspot.net> writes:
> Rahul Jain wrote:
>> So I suppose you're the one who made the monetary and administrative
>> cost a non-issue. Thanks for the generosity in both time and money!
>
> "I've pointed out that the IETF's RFCs and Scheme's SRFIs represent
> inexpensive, incremental, workable processes."
And what does this have to do with the OP's question about revising the
ANSI standard?
And there already is a CL equivalent to what you advocate, in any case.
--
Rahul Jain
·····@nyct.net
Professional Software Developer, Amateur Quantum Mechanicist
Rahul Jain <·····@nyct.net> writes:
> And there already is a CL equivalent to what you advocate, in any case.
Are there any online resources? What is the title / label of it?
--
David Magda <dmagda at ee.ryerson.ca>, http://www.magda.ca/
Because the innovator has for enemies all those who have done well under
the old conditions, and lukewarm defenders in those who may do well
under the new. -- Niccolo Machiavelli, _The Prince_, Chapter VI
David Magda wrote:
> Rahul Jain <·····@nyct.net> writes:
>
>>And there already is a CL equivalent to what you advocate, in any case.
>
> Are there any online resources? What is the title / label of it?
Google for CLRFI
Pascal
David Magda wrote:
> Has there been much discussion on add / changing it? It seems that
> some other "ANSI languages" have been updated. Is there a need for
> this to occur for CL?
There are some mistakes that could be corrected and ambiguities
that could be resolved.
Paul
Up spake Paul F. Dietz:
> > Has there been much discussion on add / changing it? It seems that
> > some other "ANSI languages" have been updated. Is there a need for
> > this to occur for CL?
>
> There are some mistakes that could be corrected and ambiguities
> that could be resolved.
I gathered from previous threads that the group's considered opinion was
that a) there are things in CL that could be improved; but b) they
aren't major enough to warrant the logistic costs[0] of upgrading
everyone; especially since c) macros allow you to work-around most of
them.
[0] As an illustration, consider that most C compilers, including GCC,
still don't (fully) support the 1999 C standard.
--
-trent
<foo> I need about over eight hours of sleep.
<bar> Yeah, but you're from Australia,
<bar> you sleep during the day.
<bar> Don't you ?