Michael Sullivan <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
| But you essentially have that in the Common Lisp Standard. Have you
| read it through? It's clear that there is a core set of standards, and
| then there are a number of separate sets of capabilities that could
| mostly be built on top of that basic standard.
| If someone really wanted to implement a non-ANSI, bare-common-lisp that
| behaved very much like common lisp, but left out a ton of functions and
| macros in the standard which did not require implementation support,
| they could certainly use much of the existing standard document as a
Just as a reminder: One could even legitimately call it "a subset
of Common Lisp" if it met the extremely minimal requirement given
in CLHS "1.7 Language Subsets":
For a language to be considered a subset, it must have the property
that any valid program in that language has equivalent semantics
and will run directly (with no extralingual pre-processing, and
no special compatibility packages) in any conforming implementation
of the full language.
I dare say that one could probably create a legitimate subset of Common
Lisp that was not much (if at all) bigger than an R5RS Scheme. This is
not intended as flame bait, but as a SWAG that one could write the spec
for such a thing in the same ~50 pages as the Scheme spec, even smaller
if one were permitted to refer to the ANSI Standard for things which
were exactly the same (e.g, the C[AD]*R functions come to mind) or the
same with some documented restrictions.
[Hmmm... Sounds like a candidate for a student semester project, eh?]
| Whether there is a market for such an implementation is another
Yes, er... well... indeed. That is actually the important question.
| ...but if there is, no one is stopping anyone from filling it right now.
Right. (See above.)
Rob Warnock, PP-ASEL-IA <email@example.com>
627 26th Avenue <URL:http://rpw3.org/>
San Mateo, CA 94403 (650)572-2607