Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!oitnews.harvard.edu!purdue!lerc.nasa.gov!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!gatech2!EU.net!peer-news.britain.eu.net!newsfeed.ed.ac.uk!edcogsci!jeff
From: jeff@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton)
Subject: Re: ISO/IEC CD 13816 -- ISLisp
Message-ID: <DIytnz.AzA@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
Organization: Centre for Cognitive Science, Edinburgh, UK
References: <19951126T160911Z@naggum.no> <49bcn6$9nt@tools.bbnplanet.com>
Date: Sat, 2 Dec 1995 15:28:26 GMT
Lines: 21

barmar@tools.bbnplanet.com (Barry Margolin) writes:

>In article <19951126T160911Z@naggum.no>, Erik Naggum  <erik@naggum.no> wrote:
>>"6. ISLisp shall promote efficient implementations and applications."
>>[...]

>Basically, criterion 6 (quoted above) was a major reason for the
>differences between ISLisp and Common Lisp.  The feeling among many of the
>ISO Lisp committee members was that CL was too big and complex to be able
>to be implemented efficiently (several existing implementation
>notwithstanding).

Why the "notwithstanding"?

They (ISO's WG-16) knew about the implementations and their properties.

Now, (6) above is a design goal.  It is not directly an expression
of what were thought to be problems with Common Lisp and should not
be read as if it were.

-- jd
