Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!yale!cmcl2!kramden.acf.nyu.edu!brnstnd
From: brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc
Subject: Re: How to make a language downward-extensible?
Message-ID: <899:Oct800:50:3590@kramden.acf.nyu.edu>
Date: 8 Oct 90 00:50:35 GMT
References: <7935@scolex.sco.COM> <29047:Sep2816:51:1290@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> <1990Oct2.024511.10082@cbnewsc.att.com>
Organization: IR
Lines: 13

In article <1990Oct2.024511.10082@cbnewsc.att.com> lgm@cbnewsc.att.com (lawrence.g.mayka) writes:
> Each vendor can supply new and useful language/library extensions -
> definitions of new functions, datatypes, etc. - in a namespace (e.g.,
> a package in Common Lisp) distinct from the "common" one (the one
> containing all those symbols already standardized).

Well, okay, but that doesn't help the programmer who's trying to write
portable code. Some extensions, like vector processing, won't be
standardized for a very, very long time. Does that mean the programmer
shouldn't be able to write code that will take advantage of vectors when
they're around? Does it mean that all such code must be unportable?

---Dan