MAILER-DAEMON@unido (Mail Delivery Subsystem) (05/19/91)
----- Transcript of session follows ----- While talking to tub.cs.tu-berlin.de: >>> RCPT To:<scheme-request@tub.uucp> <<< 550 <scheme-request@tub.uucp>... User unknown 550 tub!scheme-request... User unknown ----- Unsent message follows ----- Received: from tmpmbx by unido.informatik.uni-dortmund.de with UUCP (5.65+/UNIDO-2.0.4.d) via EUnet id AA15304; Sat, 18 May 91 10:04:17 +0200 Received: by tmpmbx.in-berlin.de (5.61++/smail2.5); Sat, 18 May 91 00:07:48 +0200; AA18221 From: root%akki%akki%unlisys@tmpmbx.uucp Received: by unlisys.in-berlin.de (/\=-/\ Smail3.1.18.1 #18.7) id <m0je9dr-0002gRC@unlisys.in-berlin.de>; Fri, 17 May 91 18:35 MEZ Apparently-From: unlisys!akki!akki!root Received: by akki.UUCP (/\=-/\ Smail3.1.18.1 #18.7) id <m0jdqbE-0001EYC@akki.UUCP>; Thu, 16 May 91 22:15 MEZ Message-Id: <m0jdqbE-0001EYC@akki.UUCP> Date: Thu, 16 May 91 22:15 MEZ Apparently-From: unlisys!akki!akki!root Apparently-To: scheme-request@tub.uucp Subject: Undeliverable Mail This mail message is undeliverable. (Probably to or from system 'systec') It was sent to you or by you. Sorry for the inconvenience. Sincerely, akki!uucp ############################################# ##### Data File: ############################ >From unlisys!tmpmbx!mc.lcs.mit.edu!tub!scheme-request Thu May 9 15:29:46 1991 remote from akki Received: by akki.UUCP (/\=-/\ Smail3.1.18.1 #18.7) id <m0jbCw3-00013hC@akki.UUCP>; Thu, 9 May 91 15:29 MEZ Received: by unlisys.in-berlin.de (/\=-/\ Smail3.1.18.1 #18.7) id <m0jb0NP-0000HUC@unlisys.in-berlin.de>; Thu, 9 May 91 02:05 MEZ Received: by tmpmbx.in-berlin.de (5.61++/smail2.5); Wed, 8 May 91 22:36:31 +0200; AA14934 Received: by tub.cs.tu-berlin.de with SMTP; Wed, 8 May 91 22:36:02 +0200; AA01015 Received: from mcsun.EU.net by unido.informatik.uni-dortmund.de with SMTP (5.65+/UNIDO-2.0.4.d) via EUnet for tub.cs.tu-berlin.de id AA19217; Wed, 8 May 91 20:36:17 GMT Received: by mcsun.EU.net via EUnet; id AA05753 (5.65a/CWI-2.85); Wed, 8 May 91 22:36:26 +0200 Received: from seismo.CSS.GOV by relay1.UU.NET with SMTP (5.61/UUNET-internet-primary) id AA01810; Wed, 8 May 91 00:38:57 -0400 Received: from MC.LCS.MIT.EDU by seismo.CSS.GOV (5.61/1.14) id AA15954; Wed, 8 May 91 00:38:50 -0400 Received: from ALTDORF.AI.MIT.EDU by mc.lcs.mit.edu id aa09150; 8 May 91 0:25 EDT Received: from MC.LCS.MIT.EDU by altdorf.ai.mit.edu with SMTP (15.11/15.6) id AA26183; Wed, 8 May 91 00:22:32 edt Received: from MC.LCS.MIT.EDU by mc.lcs.mit.edu id aa09081; 8 May 91 0:05 EDT X-Digestifier-Version: 2.3 Message-Id: <dig-Scheme-3.210@mc.lcs.mit.edu> Date: Wed, 8 May 91 00:05:37 EDT From: Automatic Scheme Digestifier <akki!unlisys!tmpmbx!mc.lcs.mit.edu!tub!scheme-request> Reply-To: tmpmbx!mc.lcs.mit.edu!tub!Scheme Subject: Scheme Digest V3 #210 To: Scheme@mc.lcs.mit.edu Scheme Digest Wed, 8 May 91 Volume 3 : Issue 210 Today's Topics: MacScheme + Toolsmith for sale, asking $250 ST-implementation scheme? Where can I get MacScheme? (2 msgs) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 5 May 91 21:01:52 GMT From: Norman Graham <norman@d.cs.okstate.edu> Organization: Oklahoma State University, Stillwater Subject: MacScheme + Toolsmith for sale, asking $250 Message-Id: <1991May5.210152.24094@d.cs.okstate.edu> Newsgroups: misc.forsale.computers,comp.lang.scheme To: scheme@mc.lcs.mit.edu The subject line says it all. This package lists for $395, ComputerWare sales it for $365, and I'm asking $250. I'll pick up the UPS shipping costs. For those of you who don't know, MacScheme is a well respected implementation of the Scheme programming language. MacScheme follows the 1989 "Revised(4) Report on the Algorithmic Language Scheme." It also compatible with Abelson and Sussman's book "Structure and Interpretation of Computer programs." MacScheme includes an incremental byte code compiler and a very fine native code compiler. If you feel the need, send inquires, hate mail, etc. to norman@d.cs.okstate.edu (that's 405,377-0027 on talknet). -- Norman Graham <norman@a.cs.okstate.edu> Standard Disclaimer Applies {cbosgd,rutgers}!okstate!norman ------------------------------ Date: 7 May 91 15:37:10 GMT From: Leo Soepenberg <lsoepenb@cs.ruu.nl> Organization: Utrecht University, Dept. of Computer Science Subject: ST-implementation scheme? Message-Id: <1991May07.153710.12652@cs.ruu.nl> To: scheme@mc.lcs.mit.edu First question: Is there an implementation of scheme running on the Atari-ST? Second question: How (and where) can i get it? Thanks in advance, Leo. -- lsoepenb@praxis.cs.ruu.nl ## The optimist proclaims that we live Leo Soepenberg ## in the best of all possible worlds, Warande 193 ## and the pessimist fears this is true. 3705 ZP Zeist ## (J.B. Cabell) ------------------------------ Date: 7 May 91 05:06:41 GMT From: Hyunsuk Seung <hseung@eniac.seas.upenn.edu> Organization: University of Pennsylvania Subject: Where can I get MacScheme? Message-Id: <42722@netnews.upenn.edu> To: scheme@mc.lcs.mit.edu Is Macscheme public domain? If so, where could I obtain them? -- H. Seung hseung@eniac.seas.upenn.edu 3820 Locust Walk #876 University of Pennsylvania Philadelphia, PA 19104 ------------------------------ Date: 7 May 91 17:37:54 GMT From: Daniel McCabe <mccabe@currituck.cs.unc.edu> Organization: University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill Subject: Where can I get MacScheme? Message-Id: <3729@borg.cs.unc.edu> In-Reply-To: <42722@netnews.upenn.edu> To: scheme@mc.lcs.mit.edu In article <42722@netnews.upenn.edu> hseung@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Hyunsuk Seung) writes: >Is Macscheme public domain? If so, where could I obtain them? >H. Seung hseung@eniac.seas.upenn.edu 3820 Locust Walk #876 No, it is not. However, the Student Edition (Trade Edition) can be purchased for about $30 from MIT Press (call (800)555-1212 to get the number for MIT Press; I don't have it handy). I have found that MacScheme is an order of magnitude faster than any of the public domain Scheme interpreters which run on the Mac. For $30, you are getting a great deal. A minor limitation of the Trade Edition is that you are limited to 1MB for your address space. If you want or need a larger address space, you need to buy the regular version (which lists for about $100) or MacScheme+Toolsmith (which lists for $400). Cheers, danm Disclaimer: I have no affiliation with Lightship Software or MIT Press other than as a satisfied customer. ------------------------------ End of Scheme Digest ******************************
MAILER-DAEMON@unido (Mail Delivery Subsystem) (05/19/91)
----- Transcript of session follows ----- While talking to tub.cs.tu-berlin.de: >>> RCPT To:<scheme-request@tub.uucp> <<< 550 <scheme-request@tub.uucp>... User unknown 550 tub!scheme-request... User unknown ----- Unsent message follows ----- Received: from tmpmbx by unido.informatik.uni-dortmund.de with UUCP (5.65+/UNIDO-2.0.4.d) via EUnet id AA15310; Sat, 18 May 91 10:04:19 +0200 Received: by tmpmbx.in-berlin.de (5.61++/smail2.5); Sat, 18 May 91 00:07:52 +0200; AA18227 From: root%akki%akki%unlisys@tmpmbx.uucp Received: by unlisys.in-berlin.de (/\=-/\ Smail3.1.18.1 #18.7) id <m0je9dt-0005LHC@unlisys.in-berlin.de>; Fri, 17 May 91 18:35 MEZ Apparently-From: unlisys!akki!akki!root Received: by akki.UUCP (/\=-/\ Smail3.1.18.1 #18.7) id <m0jdqbF-00018TC@akki.UUCP>; Thu, 16 May 91 22:15 MEZ Message-Id: <m0jdqbF-00018TC@akki.UUCP> Date: Thu, 16 May 91 22:15 MEZ Apparently-From: unlisys!akki!akki!root Apparently-To: scheme-request@tub.uucp Subject: Undeliverable Mail This mail message is undeliverable. (Probably to or from system 'systec') It was sent to you or by you. Sorry for the inconvenience. Sincerely, akki!uucp ############################################# ##### Data File: ############################ >From unlisys!tmpmbx!mc.lcs.mit.edu!tub!scheme-request Thu May 9 15:29:47 1991 remote from akki Received: by akki.UUCP (/\=-/\ Smail3.1.18.1 #18.7) id <m0jbCw6-0001CVC@akki.UUCP>; Thu, 9 May 91 15:29 MEZ Received: by unlisys.in-berlin.de (/\=-/\ Smail3.1.18.1 #18.7) id <m0jb86N-0009L9C@unlisys.in-berlin.de>; Thu, 9 May 91 10:20 MEZ Received: by tmpmbx.in-berlin.de (5.61++/smail2.5); Thu, 9 May 91 08:28:43 +0200; AA01647 Received: by tub.cs.tu-berlin.de with SMTP; Thu, 9 May 91 08:29:07 +0200; AA01855 Received: from mcsun.EU.net by unido.informatik.uni-dortmund.de with SMTP (5.65+/UNIDO-2.0.4.d) via EUnet for tub.cs.tu-berlin.de id AA26368; Thu, 9 May 91 06:29:39 GMT Received: by mcsun.EU.net via EUnet; id AA05548 (5.65a/CWI-2.85); Thu, 9 May 91 08:29:44 +0200 Received: from seismo.CSS.GOV by relay1.UU.NET with SMTP (5.61/UUNET-internet-primary) id AA26201; Thu, 9 May 91 02:28:32 -0400 Received: from MC.LCS.MIT.EDU by seismo.CSS.GOV (5.61/1.14) id AA14215; Thu, 9 May 91 02:28:25 -0400 Received: from ALTDORF.AI.MIT.EDU by mc.lcs.mit.edu id aa14838; 9 May 91 2:06 EDT Received: from MC.LCS.MIT.EDU by altdorf.ai.mit.edu with SMTP (15.11/15.6) id AA13879; Thu, 9 May 91 02:00:23 edt Received: from MC.LCS.MIT.EDU by mc.lcs.mit.edu id aa14637; 9 May 91 2:00 EDT X-Digestifier-Version: 2.3 Message-Id: <dig-Scheme-3.211@mc.lcs.mit.edu> Date: Thu, 9 May 91 00:05:45 EDT From: Automatic Scheme Digestifier <akki!unlisys!tmpmbx!mc.lcs.mit.edu!tub!scheme-request> Reply-To: tmpmbx!mc.lcs.mit.edu!tub!Scheme Subject: Scheme Digest V3 #211 To: Scheme@mc.lcs.mit.edu Scheme Digest Thu, 9 May 91 Volume 3 : Issue 211 Today's Topics: Engines for XSCHEME/scm2d eqness of procedures (2 msgs) Normal order (was Logic does not apply) (2 msgs) ST-implementation scheme? (2 msgs) TI PC-SCHEME binary from sources at mit? Where can I get MacScheme? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 8 May 91 16:35:18 GMT From: Sean Doran <smd@lsuc.on.ca> Organization: Law Society of Upper Canada, Toronto Subject: Engines for XSCHEME/scm2d Message-Id: <m0jarA1-0001tSC@lsuc.lsuc.on.ca> Newsgroups: comp.lang.scheme,alt.sources.wanted To: scheme@mc.lcs.mit.edu Some time ago I saw a posting containing patches which would add engines to XSCHEME (0.19, I think). I was sure I saved the posting, but now I can't find it. Archie has been no help, so if anyone has those patches or something similar for v 0.22 or scm2d, could you please let me know and I will make arrangements to pick them up via ftp or mail. Thanks. -- Sean Doran <smd@lsuc.ON.CA> The Law Society of Upper Canada ------------------------------ From: Olin Shivers <shivers@bronto.soar.cs.cmu.edu> Date: Wed, 8 May 91 00:38:49 EDT To: scheme@mc.lcs.mit.edu Subject: eqness of procedures Message-ID: <9105080039.aa09228@mc.lcs.mit.edu> In the revised report that I have (3.95) (eqv? (lambda (x) x) (lambda (x) x)) is explicitly undefined -- implementations can return either true or false. However, this is never spelled out for (eq? (lambda (x) x) (lambda (x) x)) Has this been settled? Transformations that beta-substitute lambda expressions need to know. -Olin ------------------------------ Date: 8 May 91 06:34:27 GMT From: Barry Margolin <barmar@think.com> Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge MA, USA Subject: eqness of procedures Message-Id: <1991May8.063427.25012@Think.COM> In-Reply-To: <9105080039.aa09228@mc.lcs.mit.edu> To: scheme@mc.lcs.mit.edu In article <9105080039.aa09228@mc.lcs.mit.edu> shivers@bronto.soar.cs.cmu.EDU (Olin Shivers) writes: >In the revised report that I have (3.95) > (eqv? (lambda (x) x) (lambda (x) x)) >is explicitly undefined -- implementations can return either true or false. > >However, this is never spelled out for > (eq? (lambda (x) x) (lambda (x) x)) >Has this been settled? (eq? x y) implies (eqv? x y), which implies (not (eqv? x y)) implies (not (eq? x y)). So, if those two procedures can be non-eqv, then they can be non-eq. -- Barry Margolin, Thinking Machines Corp. barmar@think.com {uunet,harvard}!think!barmar ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 8 May 91 16:58 GMT From: STCS8004%IRUCCVAX.UCC.IE@mitvma.mit.edu Subject: Normal order (was Logic does not apply) To: SCHEME@mc.lcs.mit.edu Message-ID: <9105081247.aa11819@mc.lcs.mit.edu> In response to my question: ... *WHY NOT ALLOW THE USER* to specify normal evaluation when required? John Gateley responds <GATELEY.91May3125853@datura.rice.edu>: Just out of curiosity, how would you compile the following function: (define foo (lambda (f x y z) (f z y x))) Consider (foo + 1 2 3) and (foo if else then pred)? The arguments to ANY application must be assumed to be passed in normal order unless you can prove otherwise. Is this what you really want? No, and I hope that that isn't the unavoidable consequence! As I understand your point, when the evaluator encounters (foo ... ) it will not know whether to evaluate the arguments or not, since in the definition of 'foo' there is nothing to indicate what is to be done. In the one case all the arguments to (f ...) need to be strict and in the other not. But if, as in Pascal, Algol 60, ... one is allowed to specify the calling style for each parameter at definition time is there still a problem? Thus couldn't (define f (lambda (x #!normal y) (... x ... y ...))) be compiled as though we had written (define f (lambda (x y) (... x ... (y) ...))) and the decision whether or not to pass <arg2> by value or as a thunk in (f <arg1> <arg2>) be made when checking that 'f' has been given two arguments - whether compiling or interpreting? Gordon Oulsnam stcs8004@iruccvax.ucc.hea.ie PS to all readers: I will be incommunicado from 1600 GMT 91/05/08 to 91/05/23 so cannot respond immediately to messages *received* in that period (Digest 211 and later) but will reply/summarize as appropriate on return. G.O. ------------------------------ Date: 8 May 91 19:57:39 GMT From: "Guillermo J. Rozas" <jinx@zurich.ai.mit.edu> Organization: M.I.T. Artificial Intelligence Lab. Subject: Normal order (was Logic does not apply) Message-Id: <JINX.91May8155739@chamarti.ai.mit.edu> In-Reply-To: <9105081247.aa11819@mc.lcs.mit.edu> To: scheme@mc.lcs.mit.edu No, and I hope that that isn't the unavoidable consequence! As I understand your point, when the evaluator encounters (foo ... ) it will not know whether to evaluate the arguments or not, since in the definition of 'foo' there is nothing to indicate what is to be done. In the one case all the arguments to (f ...) need to be strict and in the other not. But if, as in Pascal, Algol 60, ... one is allowed to specify the calling style for each parameter at definition time is there still a problem? Thus couldn't (define f (lambda (x #!normal y) (... x ... y ...))) be compiled as though we had written (define f (lambda (x y) (... x ... (y) ...))) and the decision whether or not to pass <arg2> by value or as a thunk in (f <arg1> <arg2>) be made when checking that 'f' has been given two arguments - whether compiling or interpreting? The problem is that f may be separately compiled (ie. in another module), not visible to the compiler. The compiler must assume the worst in order to be correct, and either compile two versions of the code (for every call), or compile arguments as if they were thunks, and then invoke them if f is found not to expect normal-order parameters. Even in the case of non-separately compiled programs, how are we supposed to handle things like the following? ((vector-ref some-vector 23) (+ x y) (foo x)) or even (define (map-2 f l1 l2) (cond ((and (pair? l1) (pair? l2)) (cons (f (car l) (car l2)) (map-2 f (cdr l1) (cdr l2)))) ((or (null? l1) (null? l2)) '()) (else (error "map-2: Bad arguments" l1 l2)))) When the system was built, neither the compiler nor even the system designer can know the range of values that might be passed to map-2 (or map, or for-each, etc.), so the worst case must be assumed. But that means that everyone pays the cost, not only those people using normal-order parameter-passing. I'm afraid that it IS the unavoidable consequence, and that is why not many implement systems with both normal order and applicative order parameters. ------------------------------ Date: 8 May 91 13:43:58 GMT From: Assar Westerlund <d90-awe@dront.nada.kth.se> Organization: Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden Subject: ST-implementation scheme? Message-Id: <1991May8.134358.8966@nada.kth.se> In-Reply-To: <1991May07.153710.12652@cs.ruu.nl> To: scheme@mc.lcs.mit.edu In article <1991May07.153710.12652@cs.ruu.nl> lsoepenb@cs.ruu.nl (Leo Soepenberg) writes: >First question: Is there an implementation of scheme running on the Atari-ST? >Second question: How (and where) can i get it? I don't know of any implementation for the Atari ST, but there's XSCHEME, written by David Betz, and in the public domain, which is available with source in C. It should not be to dificult to port to the Atari ST. It's avialable by FTP from the following sites (pick the closest one...): Host gatekeeper.dec.com (16.1.0.2) Last updated 12:04 3 Apr 1991 Location: /plan/lisp/scheme FILE r--r--r-- 104171 Jun 16 1990 xscheme-0.22.tar.Z Host orville.nas.nasa.gov (129.99.23.7) Last updated 05:29 9 Apr 1991 Location: / FILE rw-r--r-- 296960 Apr 23 1990 xscheme-0.22.tar Host ftp.kth.se (130.237.72.201) Directory /pub/lisps. File xscheme-0.22.tar.Z. /assar >lsoepenb@praxis.cs.ruu.nl ## The optimist proclaims that we live >Leo Soepenberg ## in the best of all possible worlds, >Warande 193 ## and the pessimist fears this is true. >3705 ZP Zeist ## (J.B. Cabell) (I'm an optimist: I believe in being a pessimst.) ################################################################################ Assar Westerlund Address: d90-awe@nada.kth.se ################################################################################ ------------------------------ Date: 8 May 91 13:43:01 GMT From: Mike DeMetz <miked@syscon> Organization: Syscon International Subject: ST-implementation scheme? Message-Id: <1991May8.134301.20149@syscon> In-Reply-To: <1991May07.153710.12652@cs.ruu.nl> To: scheme@mc.lcs.mit.edu lsoepenb@cs.ruu.nl (Leo Soepenberg) writes: >First question: Is there an implementation of scheme running on the Atari-ST? >Second question: How (and where) can i get it? Yes on panarthea.ebay.sun.com It is called xscheme0.16. ------------------------------ Date: 8 May 91 16:35:33 GMT From: Sean Doran <smd@lsuc.on.ca> Organization: Law Society of Upper Canada, Toronto Subject: TI PC-SCHEME binary from sources at mit? Message-Id: <m0jarEY-0001ttC@lsuc.lsuc.on.ca> To: scheme@mc.lcs.mit.edu Has anyone been able to make a working binary from the TIPC-SCHEME sources that are on altdorf.ai.mit.edu? Equally importantly, has anyone begun a port to make it possible to compile the sources without Lattice C and its oddities? -- Sean Doran <smd@lsuc.ON.CA> The Law Society of Upper Canada ------------------------------ Date: 8 May 91 17:21:16 GMT From: John Doner <doner@henri.ucsb.edu> Organization: University of California, Santa Barbara Subject: Where can I get MacScheme? Message-Id: <11132@hub.ucsb.edu> In-Reply-To: <3729@borg.cs.unc.edu> To: scheme@mc.lcs.mit.edu In article <3729@borg.cs.unc.edu> mccabe@currituck.cs.unc.edu (Daniel McCabe) writes: >A minor limitation of the [MacScheme] Trade Edition is that you > are limited to 1MB >for your address space. If you want or need a larger address space, you >need to buy the regular version (which lists for about $100) or >MacScheme+Toolsmith (which lists for $400). Last Summer the MacScheme distributors sent me a free copy of the Student Edition (one of the perks of being a professor). I'm pretty impressed, and still trying to figure out whether and how to use it in teaching mathematics. But it is not limited to 1 meg; the default partition size under Multifinder is 2700K. John E. Doner doner@henri.ucsb.edu (805)893-3941 Dept. Mathematics, UCSB, Santa Barbara, CA 93106 ------------------------------ End of Scheme Digest ******************************