I am doing a research on Lisp and I need to know how this language implements the following features:
(a) variables and constants (b) numeric data types (c) character data types (d) pointer variables (e) array types (f) record types (g) user defined types
I would be grateful for any assisstance. Thank You.
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network * The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
In article <01a77a96.b6cda...@usw-ex0107-050.remarq.com>, Lisp Researcher <mervindNOmeS...@excite.com.invalid> wrote:
>I am doing a research on Lisp and I need to know how this language >implements the following features:
I suggest the book "Anatomy of Lisp", as well as the proceedings of past ACM "Lisp and Functional Computing" conferences.
-- Barry Margolin, bar...@genuity.net Genuity, Burlington, MA *** DON'T SEND TECHNICAL QUESTIONS DIRECTLY TO ME, post them to newsgroups. Please DON'T copy followups to me -- I'll assume it wasn't posted to the group.
> I am doing a research on Lisp and I need to know...
I suggest you get a copy of the ANSI Common Lisp standards document. While thick, this document will, for instance, define for you the differences in what is required by the language and what is allowed to vary in different actual implementations.
* Lisp Researcher | I am doing a research on Lisp and I need to know...
* Courageous <jkras...@san.rr.com> | I suggest you get a copy of the ANSI Common Lisp | standards document.
sigh. this is a genuinely bad idea for the answers to the questions asked, which have to do with implementation of the language, not the specification of the semantics of the language. anyone who has _read_ the standard knows that it doesn't answer any of the questions.
the answer is obviously to call up a Lisp vendor and ask a technical person for some pointers. I don't think the question merits response beyond that, mainly because I don't want people who have zero clue to start doing research on anything. acquire clue, _then_ do research. otherwise, you ask clueless questions, get clueless answers from people who have even less clue than you do, and don't recognize the problems inherent in trusting the Net.
> * Lisp Researcher > | I am doing a research on Lisp and I need to know...
> * Courageous <jkras...@san.rr.com> > | I suggest you get a copy of the ANSI Common Lisp > | standards document.
> sigh. this is a genuinely bad idea for the answers to the questions > asked, which have to do with implementation of the language, not the > specification of the semantics of the language. anyone who has _read_ > the standard knows that it doesn't answer any of the questions.
That's the point: once you've read the standard, you'll realize that for *Lisp*, there is no answer. Only a particular vendors solution. But that isn't Lisp, now, is it?
Courageous <jkras...@san.rr.com> writes: > That's the point: once you've read the standard, you'll realize > that for *Lisp*, there is no answer. Only a particular vendors > solution. But that isn't Lisp, now, is it?
One would think there are more expedient ways of getting to that conclusion than digesting a large ANSI specification (or even the HyperSpec, which is cheaper and easier to get hold of).
Reading the cmucl user guide might go some way towards getting an answer to the original question, I suppose.
In article <01a77a96.b6cda...@usw-ex0107-050.remarq.com>, Lisp Researcher <mervindNOmeS...@excite.com.invalid> writes:
> I am doing a research on Lisp and I need to know how this language > implements the following features:
> (a) variables and constants > (b) numeric data types > (c) character data types > (d) pointer variables > (e) array types > (f) record types > (g) user defined types
a pretty good book about how lisp like languages are implemented is "Lisp in Small Pieces" by C. Queinnec (sp?)
> > That's the point: once you've read the standard, you'll realize > > that for *Lisp*, there is no answer. Only a particular vendors > > solution. But that isn't Lisp, now, is it?
> One would think there are more expedient ways of getting to that > conclusion than digesting a large ANSI specification (or even the > HyperSpec, which is cheaper and easier to get hold of).
Well, okay. The gut instinct nature of my response was that anyone doing "research" on Lisp ought to know what Lisp *is*. But the fellow didin't really say what he meant by "research," so it's hard to say.
* Courageous <jkras...@san.rr.com> | That's the point: once you've read the standard, you'll realize that for | *Lisp*, there is no answer. Only a particular vendors solution. But | that isn't Lisp, now, is it?
I'm disappointed. I was waiting for a "Lisp is not like that, Erik".
I must assume from past experience that you won't ever understand that giving somebody the standard is not an answer to implementation issues, but will now proceed to call yourself "victim" and me "abuser" for pointing this out to you, and _blame_ me for your lack of understanding.
instead of _actually_ going down that route, I'll just summarize it for us all: Joe Kraska will never relinquish the genuinely bad idea of giving someone the whole standard when they ask for _common_ implementations of certain aspects of Common Lisp, but will forever think his was a highly meritorious suggestion which was undeservedly bashed. it is still wrong.
now, refrain from following up, Joe Kraska. we know what you will say.
