Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!olivea!mintaka!ogicse!milton!milton.u.washington.edu!jsp From: jsp@glia.biostr.washington.edu. (Jeff Prothero) Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp.x Subject: Common xlisp Message-ID: Date: 17 Nov 90 19:27:30 GMT References: <8440@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM> Sender: news@milton.u.washington.edu Distribution: comp Organization: Biological Structure, U of Wash, Seattle Lines: 24 In-reply-to: toma@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM's message of 16 Nov 90 21:13:29 GMT In article <8440@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM> toma@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM (Tom Almy) writes: >I have spend many hours going over the listings, fixing bugs, and making >extensions. From email, I understand a number of other people have also done (or are doing) significant work on xlisp. Plus, it has been suggested that David Betz has dropped xlisp in favor of working on xscheme. Is there any interest in coordinating work on xlisp, or is everybody determined to have My Very Own Xlisp? Sticking my neck out a bit here, I'd be willing to try maintaining a merged version, provided the result could be distributed under winterp-style (i.e., *very* relaxed) copyright, and that the result stayed within my understanding of the spirit of xlisp -- simple, small and portable. (No point in re-inventing AKCL, say -- it already exists.) E.g., really big function libraries should be compilation options rather than mandatory. If a *real* xlisp guru wants to take on the task, that's even better, of course... -- jsp@glia.biostr.washington.edu (Jeff Prothero) jsp@u.washington.edu (If above bounces.) Biological Structure Graphics Lab, U Washington