Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!ucsd!ucbvax!CS.ROCHESTER.EDU!miller
From: miller@CS.ROCHESTER.EDU (Brad Miller)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ti.explorer
Subject: Re: CL compatibility.
Message-ID: <19890907163323.4.MILLER@DOUGHNUT.CS.ROCHESTER.EDU>
Date: 7 Sep 89 16:33:00 GMT
References: <2830099553-4135511@KSL-EXP-6>
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Reply-To: miller@cs.rochester.edu
Distribution: inet
Organization: University of Rochester, Department of Computer Science
Lines: 20


    Date: Wed, 6 Sep 89  11:45:53 PDT
    From: RICE@sumex-aim.stanford.edu

    This is likely to become
    even more of a problem since the greater state of
    development and availability of TI's other CL standard
    stuff (CLOS/CLX/CLUE/CLCS) in release 6 means that
    one is more likely to want to use TI machines for the
    development of large portable CL systems.

CLUE is a standard? How about CLIM then?

    I think that not having the default system behaviour
    being strict CL is a major bug.  Does anyone else have
    any opinion on this one?

I don't know about "major" bug, but I certainly think there should be a very
easy way to be "standard conformant", e.g. a fn that sets all the right
switches or some such.