Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!bloom-beacon!apple!cambridge.apple.com!brazil!alms
From: alms@brazil.cambridge.apple.com (Andrew L. M. Shalit)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.programmer
Subject: Re: Allegro Common Lisp
Message-ID: 
Date: 17 Aug 89 17:23:34 GMT
References: <1989Aug17.155858.13906@cs.rochester.edu>
Sender: news@cambridge.apple.com
Organization: Apple Computer Inc, Cambridge, MA
Lines: 52
In-reply-to: miller@CS.ROCHESTER.EDU's message of 17 Aug 89 15:58:58 GMT



   From: miller@CS.ROCHESTER.EDU (Brad Miller)
   Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.programmer
   Date: 17 Aug 89 15:58:58 GMT
   Organization: University of Rochester Computer Science Department

   Well, APDA won't answer technical questions, maybe someone inside apple who
   is reading this list can...

were you suprised?

   CLOS and version 18 of Kent Pitmans condition system were accepted last
   summer by X3J13... when will ACL support them?

in version 2.0, which is currently under development.  The next release is
version 1.3, which is slated for October.  1.3's main new feature is a spiffy
interactive interface editor (extensible for new classes of interface
components, and comes with sources).  Also some random other speed
improvements and such.  2.0 is a much more ambitious rewrite, slated for
not "some time in 90".

   Does ACL support logical pathnames? If not why not?

MACL (the current name of ACL) has logical pathnames (has always had them).
There are some differences with the recently adopted standard logical
pathnames.  We'll implement the new standard with 2.0.

   What is the position on the emerging CLIM standard? How compatible is the
   existing window system with it? Will they support it if it is adopted?

We're aware of CLIM, and we're looking into it.  Right now the
spec is still being worked out, so it's perhaps too early to tell
whether it will be as good as everyone hopes.  We know that a portable
window system is something everyone wants, and we want to keep our
customors happy. . .

I think it's pretty unlikely that CLIM would get adopted as part of the
Common Lisp standard.  If it does, then we wouldn't have much choice
about supporting it (we're committed to supporting the full CL standard).

The current window system was written without CLIM in mind, so I don't think
there's much chance of them being 'compatible'.  Do you mean "how easy
would it be to implement CLIM on top of the current window system?"
I really don't know.  Parts would probably be easy, but other parts
would also probably be very hard.


-andrew

disclaimer: The opinions expressed are mine only.  They don't constitute
an official policy statement by my company.