Am 16.05.2009 um 04:55 schrieb Daniel Weinreb:
The Manifesto talks about "language extensions" at one point, and a "standard library" later on, which may lead to some confusion about this point. On the other hand, if you look at CLtL, you can see that it does not separate a "core language" from a bunch of functions and macros that can be build on that core language. (That's a big reason that Common Lisp is criticized as being a language that's "too large". If you consider Java plus all the standard Java libraries, it looks big too!) We had originally wanted to define CLtL that way, but it was too difficult, for many practical reasons. So Common Lisp is left with a legacy of not distinguishing clearly between what is the "language" and what are "already-loaded standard libraries".
Yes thats true - but isn't this an even bigger reason to be more careful for CLtL3? I think it might be interesting to split the effort into a CLtL3 Core and CLtL3 Extensions. In CLtL3 Extensions many more things are allowed, it is a place for experimentation. Proven things may later get included into the CLtL3 Core. At this stage we can start collecting things and start picking pearls when there is enough on the table.
This leads into the question of scope. There are some things that are so basic, and so widely needed, and so small, that it's completely clear that they belong: a library for portable sockets (usocket), for example. A way to write one's own streams is clearly a language extension, and one of the various stream packages should certainly be included. It would be great to be able to have a standard way to deal with Unicode strings, although there are some thing that made that hard. Thread manipulation is another obvious candidate.
The real problem is that for nearly all things like threads or sockets there is a huge difference in what people demand. Some people want strict Unix semantics others just want something simple. Some features may not be easily done in a platform independent way. The problem is here to how to decide what we want to settle on. There needs to be a clear process.
Language extensions are another problem. While every language user can write an XML-Parser to a specified interface, it isn't that easy to extend a closed vendors lisp with things like e.g. user extensible streams. How do we want to get vendors involved? Without vendor support CLtL3 will only be just another paper tiger.
Then you can move up to thinks that are quite clearly libraries, yet considered something that any system should not be without, such as regular expressions. Then there are XML libraries, an HTTP client, an HTTP server. There are some things where it's not clear what approach is best, such as generation of web pages and interfacing to relational databases, but we could pick one.
I think concentrating on this would scatter the effort too much at this point. While I find things like XML-Libraries (cxml) or regular expressions (cl-ppcre) relatively straightforward to decide - how would we want to choose a HTTP Server? CL-HTTP? AllegroServe? Hunchentoot? UCW? Araneida? I think there is nothing wrong collecting data about available options and evaluate them.
What I, myself, would like to see is easy ways for programmers to do all the normal things that application programs and servers can do today. How much of that belongs in the scope of the CLtL3 process is yet to be determined. We might agree that there should be easy and common ways to do an HTTP server, but also agree that CLtL3 isn't the place to put them.
Yes
Sequences, along the lines that Christope Rhodes has started to do, would be great. On the other hand, I think what he has so far isn't ideal and needs more development, and I'd be hesitant about declaring it a standard at this point.
Sequences have a long way to go - I don't know if there is any reference implementation yet. If there is one it exists probably only for one implementation. But I still think it is a perfect candidate for CLtL3 Extensions.
New ideas on packages and modules, while welcome, are something I'd consider too innovative to put into a "standard" library. These thing are hard to invent and take a long time to get experience with. I was one of the people who designed packges (yes, mea culpa) and I've been involved more than once in trying to come up with better modularity constructs, and I can assure you it's not obvious or easy. Let's stick to what's well-understood for the foreseeable future.
I guess you mean CL packages and not ASDF, DEFSYSTEM a.s.o. Hierarchical packages do exist for quite some time on many different implementations. I personally do like the idea of Tim Bradshaws conduits package better; particularily per-package aliases. With the latter you can specify nicknames for other packages in your own packages without changing the package names or nicknames globally. The conduits system is severals years old and I think of it as a proven thing. I think there should be some discussion if something of this could make it into CLtL3.
Tim Bradshaw's Conduits: http://www.tfeb.org/lisp/hax.html#CONDUITS
ciao, Jochen
-- Jochen Schmidt CRISPYLOGICS Uhlandstr. 9 , 90408 Nuremberg
Fon +49 (0)911 517 999 82 Fax +49 (0)911 517 999 83
mailto:info@crispylogics.com http://www.crispylogics.com