Subject: Re: ISO on Common (was: ISO/IEC CD 13816 -- ISLisp)
From: Erik Naggum <>
Date: 1995/12/22
Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp
Message-ID: <>

[Fernando D. Mato Mira]

|   What hurdles, if any, exist to implement ISO Lisp as a thin layer
|   of macrology on top of Common Lisp?

I see this as implying that it would be desirable to have a Common Lisp
package that implemented ISLisp.

if I may stretch the idea, I think one should _define_ International
Standard Lisp as a package that can be referenced in existing Lisp systems
(probably several, not just the _standard_ ones).  this is not a trivial
exercise, but keeping with the spirit of the Norwegian suggestion (mine,
actually, although it was not as new in the real world as it was to ISO <--
understatement) during discussions about the procedures of ISO recognition
of Publicly Accessible Specifications (PAS), which was adopted with much
less enthusiasm than I had hoped (essentially "yeah, great idea.  what's
the next item?"), that ISO standards should have a free reference
implementation before they were fully adopted.

C++ got jump-started by free-loading on C compilers, a devilishly clever
move in retrospect, but probably one of necessity at the time.  similarly,
I don't think ISLisp has _any_ chance of becoming a winning standard Lisp
unless it is piggy-backing on previous work and available compilers, just
as I don't think C++ would have a snowball's chance in hell of winning if
the current ISO draft was thrown in implementors' faces with an "implement
_this_" attitude.

probably forging a bad pun, I'd like to think of this as the incrementality
of standards editors, with stress on "mentality".

#<Erik 3028583669>
suppose we actually were immortal...
what is the opposite of living your life as if every day were your last?