Xref: utzoo comp.lang.scheme.c:143 comp.lang.scheme:1335
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!samsung!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!van-bc!ubc-cs!fornax!miron
From: miron@fornax.UUCP (Miron Cuperman)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.scheme.c,comp.lang.scheme
Subject: T3.1
Summary: Why not?
Message-ID: <788@fornax.UUCP>
Date: 5 Jun 90 19:49:07 GMT
Distribution: comp
Organization: School of Computing Science, SFU, Burnaby, B.C. Canada
Lines: 17

I have seen several people saying that they use Cscheme (from MIT) on
their Sparcs.  I am wondering why aren't they using T3.1 from the
T project at Yale.  I think it is a much better choice for the Sparc.
It has a very good compiler, a good debugger, and pretty complete docs.

A new version is available from:
128.52.32.13	WHEATIES.AI.MIT.EDU
in the directory pub/t3.1.  The executable is in sparc.tar.Z.

I have discovered three undefined functions that have to be redefined:
(define-constant (set-car! x y) (set (car x) y))
(define-constant (set-cdr! x y) (set (cdr x) y))
(define-constant (string-set! x y z) (set (string-elt x y) z))

To go into the scheme interpreter use '(scheme-reset)'.
-- 
	By me: Miron Cuperman <miron@cs.sfu.ca>