GNU Extension Language Plans
Masayuki Ida
translation into Japanese and have several questions.
I like to post the original version and Japanese version
as well to several news groups in Japan.
Let me have better understanding with your answer to the following questions.
Here is my questions:
>> GNU Extension Language Plans
>> Richard Stallman, GNU Project
>>
>> [Please redistribute widely]
>>
>> ...
>>Sometimes developers choose a language because they like it. But not
>>always. Sun recently announced a campaign to "make Tcl the universal
>>scripting language."
Let me know how and when Sun announced.
Or, give me a pointer for it.
>> This is a campaign to convince all the
>>developers who *don't* prefer Tcl that they really have no choice.
>>The idea is that each one of us will believe that Sun will inevitably
>>convince everyone else to use Tcl, and each of us will feel compelled
>>to follow where we believe the rest are going.
>>
>>That campaign is what led me to decide that I needed to speak to the
>>community about the issue. By announcing on the net that GNU software
>>packages won't use Tcl, I hope to show programmers that not everyone
>>is going to jump on the Tcl bandwagon--so they don't have to feel
>>compelled to do so. If developers choose to support Tcl, it should be
>>because they want to, not because Sun convinces them they have no
>>choice.
(Applaud!)
>> The GNU extension language plan
>>
>>Here is the plan for achieving the design goals stated above.
>>
>>* Step 1. The base language should be modified Scheme, with these features:
>>
>>** Case-sensitive symbol names.
>>** No distinction between #f and (), for the sake of supporting Lisp
>> as well as Scheme.
>>** Convenient fast exception handling, and catch and throw.
>>** Extra slots in a symbol, to better support
>> translating other Lisp dialects into Scheme.
thinking of Lisp2 ?
>>** An optional reader feature to convert nil to #f and t to #t,
>> for the sake of supporting Lisp as well as Scheme.
Lisp in general ?
In what sense you are discriminating Scheme from Lisp ?
>>** An interface to the library version of expect.
What is 'expect' ?
>>** Python appears suitable for such an implementation, as far as I can
>>tell from a quick look. By "suitable" I mean that mostly the same
>>language could be implemented--minor changes in semantics would be ok.
>>(It would be useful for someone to check this carefully.)
What is 'Python' ?
Is it something from Python compiler of CMU guys ?
>>We will permit use of the modified Scheme interpreter in proprietary
>>programs, so as to compete effectively with alternative extensibility
>>packages.
Do you give the name for "the modified Scheme interpreter" ?
Masayuki Ida
Richard Stallman
Or, give me a pointer for it.
I think Lord can give you that.
>>** An interface to the library version of expect.
What is 'expect' ?
I don't know any details, but it is a program that uses Tcl
to control other programs using ptys.
What is 'Python' ?
It is a language, not at all like Lisp, being used as an extension
language now.
Do you give the name for "the modified Scheme interpreter" ?
No name now.
Barry Margolin
> Do you give the name for "the modified Scheme interpreter" ?
>
>No name now.
You'd better come up with one soon. I've already seen people starting to
refer to it as GnuScript, and if you don't give them an alternative this is
likely to stick.
Then again, GnuScript isn't too bad a name (although people might confuse
it with GhostScript).
--
Barry Margolin
BBN Internet Services Corp.
bar...@near.net
Oliver Laumann
> it with GhostScript).
But Scheme is not a scripting language; it is a full, general-purpose
programming language. If the GNU extension language will be Scheme,
then why not call it Scheme? Given that we already have Emacs-Lisp,
something like GNU-Scheme would be a logical choice.
Kevin K. Lewis
How about 'Gleem' - rhymes and has a "G" and is shines ;-)
Gleem is good! Someone else suggested `gel' (GNU Extension
Language?); it makes you think of sticky things like glue.
I think we're on track!
--
Kevin K. Lewis | My opinions may be unreasonable
lew...@aud.alcatel.com | but such is the voice of inspiration
Mitchell Wand
> GNU Script and GNU EL (with minor variations) are both
> potentially confusing, which is a pity. GNU Scheme is simply
> inaccurate. While on the topic, though, anyone else notice that
> "Scheme" backwards....
How about Gingel? (Gingel Is Not the GNU Exte....NO CARRIER)
--Mitch
Mitchell Wand Internet: wa...@ccs.neu.edu
College of Computer Science, Northeastern University
360 Huntington Avenue #161CN, Boston, MA 02115 Phone: (617) 373 2072
World Wide Web: http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/wand Fax: (617) 373 5121
David Loeffler
In article <LEWIKK.94O...@grasshopper.aud.alcatel.com> lew...@grasshopper.aud.alcatel.com (Kevin K. Lewis) writes:
Path: pulitzer.eng.sematech.org!gater3.sematech.org!news.dell.com!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!utnut!nott!bcarh189.bnr.ca!corpgate!news.utdallas.edu!fozzy.aud.alcatel.com!fozzy.aud.alcatel.com!lewikk
From: lew...@grasshopper.aud.alcatel.com (Kevin K. Lewis)
Newsgroups: comp.org.lisp-users,comp.lang.scheme
Date: 24 Oct 1994 18:06:06 GMT
Organization: Alcatel Network Systems
Lines: 11
References: <941020194...@mole.gnu.ai.mit.edu> <389e9e$2...@tools.near.net>
<38av7u$o...@news.cs.tu-berlin.de>
NNTP-Posting-Host: grasshopper.aud.alcatel.com
Xref: pulitzer.eng.sematech.org comp.org.lisp-users:113 comp.lang.scheme:3483
In article <38av7u$o...@news.cs.tu-berlin.de> n...@cs.tu-berlin.de (Oliver Laumann) writes:
But Scheme is not a scripting language; it is a full, general-purpose
programming language. If the GNU extension language will be Scheme,
then why not call it Scheme? Given that we already have Emacs-Lisp,
something like GNU-Scheme would be a logical choice.
But that's neither catchy, nor funny, and, therefore, impractical. ;-)
John Lacey
>> Then again, GnuScript isn't too bad a name (although people might confuse
>> it with GhostScript).
>If the GNU extension language will be Scheme, then why not call
>it Scheme? Given that we already have Emacs-Lisp, something
>like GNU-Scheme would be a logical choice.
Except that the GNU extension language will not be Scheme, which
has an international standard, but an incompatible subset with
extensions. (The third is not a problem, but the first two are.)
GNU Script and GNU EL (with minor variations) are both
potentially confusing, which is a pity. GNU Scheme is simply
inaccurate. While on the topic, though, anyone else notice that
"Scheme" backwards....
John L
Kevin K. Lewis
But Scheme is not a scripting language; it is a full, general-purpose
programming language. If the GNU extension language will be Scheme,
then why not call it Scheme? Given that we already have Emacs-Lisp,
something like GNU-Scheme would be a logical choice.
But that's neither catchy, nor funny, and, therefore, impractical. ;-)
Ben A. Mesander
language is terribly productive, but I'm going to do it also :)
I think it should be named `pynchon', and have a recursive paranoiac
parser.
--
Ben Mesander This is not official USGS policy, etc.
"Measurement of the vibrational response of porcine lungs to low-
frequency underwater sound", by Thomas N. Lewis, James S. Martin,
and Peter H. Rogers, "Journal of the Acoustical Society of
America", vol. 95, no. 5, Pt 2, p 2830.
Michael R. Blair
How about Gingel? (Gingel Is Not the GNU Exte....NO CARRIER)
--Mitch
Insofar as the GNU Extension Language will be essentially a SCM extension, I
think an appropriate name would be SCME. For those of us who are in the habit
of pronouncing "SCM" as "scum", "SCME" is also pleasantly descriptive.
Tit for tat.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
zi...@ai.mit.edu Michael R. Blair MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory
(617) 253-0765 [O] -. 545 Technology Square --- Room 439
(617) 661-3394 [H] /\. Cambridge, MA 02139-3539