[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
I am confused by your recent messages.
2 Feb 88:
I suppose it might be natural for one who believes that association with
Common Lisp is the ``worst possible thing for Scheme'' to not wish to
associate with people involved with Common Lisp, but I see many of the
Common Lisp folks shaking their heads and wondering how such a weird and
depressing experience as Common Lisp standardization could have been
foisted on them. But, alas, such a dreamer am I to wish for co-operation.
Will said that having a stardards organization for Scheme be part of X3J13
would be the worst possible thing for Scheme. Others have said they would
like to avoid Scheme and Common Lisp being closely associated. As I read
the above, you seem to say that advocating a clearly distinguished
standards effort for Scheme --as Will has advocated-- is uncooperative.
Why? You yourself characterize Common Lisp standardization (as embodied by
X3J13) as "a weird and depressing experience." So let the Scheme efforts
walk clear of that tar pit.
4 Feb 88:
2. I am saddened by the animosity I see towards Common Lisp and by
implication towards the Common Lisp community. I made the proposal because
I thought the it might serve as a means of bringing two group together who
would seem to be naturally linked.
A preference by the Scheme community to have the Scheme language clearly
distinguished from the Common Lisp language does not imply that the Scheme
community sees no value in Common Lisp. You say a distaste for Common Lisp
implies a distaste for the Common Lisp community. I do not understand the
basis for this implication.
...In fact I have seen people who are my
friends attack me because they thought I was trying to destroy their
community. So, I withdraw my proposal,
There must be something going on behind the scenes. I cannot understand
this in the context of what I have seen on the mailing list.
...and I guess I withdraw from the
arena of bringing the Lisp/Scheme communities together.
Enjoy your battle.
And now I am completely lost. Does the mutual influence of the Common Lisp
and Scheme communities hinge on some ANSI-contained relationship? I think
not. The Lisp and Scheme communities already interact on technical issues.
(Will I see you at the Lisp Conference?) More interaction is possible. I
would think that an X3J13 subcommittee (or whatever) on Scheme would
increase political interaction, while doing little for technical
interaction. And what battle? (I am still lost.)
4. We can also broaden the charter of X3J13 to specifically include
Scheme. A committee or subcommittee on Scheme could be established
with its own time schedule.
This would accomplish several things for you:
6. You would have a voice and standing within any ISO process concerning
Lisp in which you were interested.
7. Any renegade IEEE efforts towards standardizing Scheme would be
officially disallowed through a petition from SPARC to IEEE.
and in a later message
Many observers (Mathis and myself included) believe that if ANSI is
asked to recognize Scheme as a different language from Common Lisp, they
will not do so, but ask that X3J13 broaden its charter.
Certainly you did not intend make threats, but it seems to me a threat is
implied: "Play the X3J13 game or you can't participate in ISO Lisp; if ISO
asks X3J13 about Scheme, X3J13 will incorporate Scheme with or without the
I find it strange that the committee that wrote "Common Lisp" into their
charter so as "not to hamper the Scheme efforts" would then broaden its
charter to include Scheme. From what I understand, ANSI could choose to
include an IEEE effort in ISO level activities if appropriate. Clyde Camp
says such cooperation is possible. Will also makes this point. Are
we naive to believe that cooperation between ANSI and IEEE is possible?
I have moved from being slightly against any formal standards effort
to slightly in favor of an effort organized under IEEE.