From: Christopher C. Stacy
Subject: Lisp standard for multiprocessing
Date: 
Message-ID: <umzsmqgjk.fsf@news.dtpq.com>
If people want to standardize something, how about multi-processing?
That ought include both threads (of whatever types are available in a
given implementation), synchronization, as well as thread-safety
definitions for primitive language elements.  This would also be 
an opportunity to add futures to the language.

There's a bunch of hair that should keep you busy...
From: Christophe Rhodes
Subject: Re: Lisp standard for multiprocessing
Date: 
Message-ID: <sqacolmu7s.fsf@cam.ac.uk>
······@news.dtpq.com (Christopher C. Stacy) writes:

> If people want to standardize something, how about multi-processing?

You're probably reacting to the same thing as I have observed: people
don't want to standardize something, they want for something to be
standardized.

That said, it's possible to be too cynical; whenever someone takes
baby steps in that direction, they seem instantly to be shot down by
some grizzled veteran making them aware that it had better run in
VaxLisp on their TOPS-20 machine.  I don't think it matters too much
if the first attempts at standardizing something complex like
multi-processing aren't perfect, as long as they get some kind of
critical feedback from those with experience.

What are your comments on the existing proposals for standardising
multi-processing?

Christophe
From: Christopher C. Stacy
Subject: Re: Lisp standard for multiprocessing
Date: 
Message-ID: <u8y44jsfh.fsf@news.dtpq.com>
Christophe Rhodes <·····@cam.ac.uk> writes:
> What are your comments on the existing proposals for
> standardising multi-processing?

Where would I find these documents?
From: Darren Bane
Subject: Re: Lisp standard for multiprocessing
Date: 
Message-ID: <1112293139.645990.313140@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
CLOCC-PORT ( http://clocc.sourceforge.net/dist/port.html ) hasn't quite
got a proposal, but an implementation instead--proc.lisp.  It looks
like another good place to start.
From: Gorbag
Subject: Re: Lisp standard for multiprocessing
Date: 
Message-ID: <jnV2e.8$C94.5@bos-service2.ext.ray.com>
"Christopher C. Stacy" <······@news.dtpq.com> wrote in message
··················@news.dtpq.com...
> Christophe Rhodes <·····@cam.ac.uk> writes:
> > What are your comments on the existing proposals for
> > standardising multi-processing?
>
> Where would I find these documents?

There used to be an archive on ftp.cs.rochester.edu that had some proposals
for common lisp multiprocessing (along with, e.g., defsystem). This appears
to have been work done under the agis of the ALU with vendor cooperation,
though nothing much seems to have come of it.
From: Darren Bane
Subject: Re: Lisp standard for multiprocessing
Date: 
Message-ID: <1112292897.992198.123150@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>
CLOCC-PORT ( http://clocc.sourceforge.net/dist/port.html ) hasn't quite
got a proposal, but an implementation instead--proc.lisp.  It looks
like another good place to start.
From: Paolo Amoroso
Subject: Re: Lisp standard for multiprocessing
Date: 
Message-ID: <87acojgaqz.fsf@plato.moon.paoloamoroso.it>
······@news.dtpq.com (Christopher C. Stacy) writes:

> Christophe Rhodes <·····@cam.ac.uk> writes:
>> What are your comments on the existing proposals for
>> standardising multi-processing?
>
> Where would I find these documents?

One such proposal is available here:

  BORDEAUX-MP
  http://www.cliki.net/BORDEAUX-MP


Paolo
-- 
Why Lisp? http://lisp.tech.coop/RtL%20Highlight%20Film
Recommended Common Lisp libraries/tools (see also http://clrfi.alu.org):
- ASDF/ASDF-INSTALL: system building/installation
- CL-PPCRE: regular expressions
- UFFI: Foreign Function Interface
comp.lang.lisp / 2005 / mar