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.