billwolf%hazel.cs.clemson.edu@hubcap.clemson.edu (William Thomas Wolfe, 2847 ) (09/27/89)
From ted@nmsu.edu (Ted Dunning): > one of the problems is that an in parameter is still a reference which > must be accounted for. since there is no mechanism to handle > initialization distinct from assignment, it is difficult to write a > robust reference counting collection mechanism. OK, I agree. Nobody ever does this anyway, and I can't imagine why anyone would want to. > Actually, preprocessors do exist; I believe the Classic Ada product > (which provides inheritance and dynamic binding to the Ada O-O types) > works via preprocessing. However, they must be kept separate from > any validated compiler system. > > and thus will never be standardized or recognized by the ada community > at large? There is a systematic revision process for the Ada language. I will be happy to send an Ada 9X revision request form to Mr. Dunning or anyone else who requests it. > hmmmm..... seems to me that mister wolfe hasn't done much lisp > programming if he thinks that lisp has no concept of data typing. > perhaps he should read CLtL a bit. particularly chapter 2 (data > types), chapter 4 (type specifiers), section 6.2 (data type > predicates), chapter 9 (declarations), as well as chapters 12, 13, 14, > 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19 which describe the builtin data types and type > extension methods available to the common lisp programmer. OK, I'm not up on the very latest versions of Lisp (of which I hear that there are many). How about multitasking capabilities? Bill Wolfe, wtwolfe@hubcap.clemson.edu
ted@nmsu.edu (Ted Dunning) (09/28/89)
In article <6592@hubcap.clemson.edu> billwolf%hazel.cs.clemson.edu@hubcap.clemson.edu (William Thomas Wolfe, 2847 ) writes: From ted@nmsu.edu (Ted Dunning): > one of the problems is that an in parameter is still a reference which > must be accounted for. since there is no mechanism to handle > initialization distinct from assignment, it is difficult to write a > robust reference counting collection mechanism. OK, I agree. Nobody ever does this anyway, and I can't imagine why anyone would want to. it is done commonly and easily in c++. > hmmmm..... seems to me that mister wolfe hasn't done much lisp > programming if he thinks that lisp has no concept of data typing. > perhaps he should read CLtL a bit. particularly chapter 2 (data > types), chapter 4 (type specifiers), section 6.2 (data type > predicates), chapter 9 (declarations), as well as chapters 12, 13, 14, > 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19 which describe the builtin data types and type > extension methods available to the common lisp programmer. OK, I'm not up on the very latest versions of Lisp (of which I hear that there are many). How about multitasking capabilities? trivial and lucid in lisps that support continuations and/or engines. try scheme, allegro common lisp, symbolics common lisp, or xerox's interlisp offerings. if you want to play, grab a copy of one of the pd interepreters from the net. -- ted@nmsu.edu remember, when extensions and subsets are outlawed, only outlaws will have extensions or subsets
gateley@m2.csc.ti.com (John Gateley) (10/05/89)
In article <TED.89Sep27133034@aigyptos.nmsu.edu> ted@nmsu.edu (Ted Dunning) writes: > >In article <6592@hubcap.clemson.edu> billwolf%hazel.cs.clemson.edu@hubcap.clemson.edu (William Thomas Wolfe, 2847 ) writes: > OK, I'm not up on the very latest versions of Lisp (of which I > hear that there are many). How about multitasking capabilities? >trivial and lucid in lisps that support continuations and/or engines. >try scheme, allegro common lisp, symbolics common lisp, or xerox's >interlisp offerings. if you want to play, grab a copy of one of the >pd interepreters from the net. Continuations do not really support multitasking: they merely (:^) represent the flow of control within a single task. However, there are several Lisp's which do support multi-tasking: Bertram Hallam's multi-lisp, QLisp by Gabriel and ?, and others I'm sure. (please forgive inaccuracies in the refs, I am not up to date on the topic). On a more practical level, there are the stack group's of the explorer (probably first done by symbolics). John gateley@m2.csc.ti.com
ted@nmsu.edu (Ted Dunning) (10/06/89)
In article <93301@ti-csl.csc.ti.com> gateley@m2.csc.ti.com (John Gateley) writes: In article <TED.89Sep27133034@aigyptos.nmsu.edu> ted@nmsu.edu (Ted Dunning) writes: >trivial and lucid in lisps that support continuations and/or engines. ^^^^^^^ Continuations do not really support multitasking: they merely (:^) represent the flow of control within a single task. However, there are several Lisp's which do support multi-tasking: Bertram Hallam's multi-lisp, QLisp by Gabriel and ?, and others I'm sure. (please forgive inaccuracies in the refs, I am not up to date on the topic). On a more practical level, there are the stack group's of the explorer (probably first done by symbolics). sorry for the and/or. engines are definitely designed with multi-tasking support in mind. as for continuations, it was my impression (untested) that it would not be hard to implement coroutines with first-class continuations. anyone care to demonstrate the matter either way? -- ted@nmsu.edu remember, when extensions and subsets are outlawed, only outlaws will have extensions or subsets