LISP and Symbolic Computation

, Volume 1, Issue 1, pp 81–101

Endpaper: Technical issues of separation in function cells and value cells

  • Richard P. Gabriel
  • Kent M. Pitman
Article

Summary

The bulk of arguments that focus on clean semantics and notational simplicity tend to favor uniting the function and value namespaces. In spite of this, there are those who hold strongly to a belief that a two-namespace system affords useful expressive power that they are unwilling to do without. In the end, practical considerations favor the status quo for Common Lisp. There are a large number of improvements beyond a single namespace that could be made to Common Lisp that would clean it up and simplify it. We feel that the time for such radical changes to Common Lisp has passed, and it is the job of future Lisp designers to take the lessons from Common Lisp and Scheme to produce an improved Lisp.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Abelson, H., and Sussman, G.J., with J. Sussman.Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1985.Google Scholar
  2. Brooks, R.A., Gabriel, R.P., and Steele, G.L., Jr. S-1 Common Lisp Implementation, Proceedings of the 1982 ACM Symposium on Lisp and Functional Programming, Pittsburgh, PA, August 1982.Google Scholar
  3. Digital Equipment Corporation.VAX LISP/VMS User's Guide. Maynard, MA, 1986.Google Scholar
  4. Gabriel, R.P.Performance and Evaluation of Lisp Systems. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1985.Google Scholar
  5. Halstead, R. MultiLisp, Proceedings of the 1984 ACM Symposium on Lisp and Functional Programming, August 1984.Google Scholar
  6. Kohlbecker, E.E., Jr.Syntactic Extensions in the Programming Language Lisp. Ph.D. thesis, Indiana University, Bloomington, August 1986.Google Scholar
  7. Lucid, Inc.Lucid Common Lisp Reference Manual for the VAX. Menlo Park, CA, 1986.Google Scholar
  8. McCarthy, J., et al.Lisp 1.5 Programmer's Manual. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1965.Google Scholar
  9. Padget, J., et al. Desiderata for the standardisation of LISP, Proceedings of the 1986 ACM Conference on Lisp and Functional Programming, Cambridge, MA, August 1986.Google Scholar
  10. Pitman, K.M.The Revised Maclisp Manual (Saturday Evening Edition). LCS Technical Report 295, MIT, Cambridge, MA, May 1983.Google Scholar
  11. Rees, J., and Clinger, W. (Eds.).Revised 3 Report on the Algorithmic Language Scheme. SIGPLAN Notices 21(12), September 1986.Google Scholar
  12. Steele, G.L., Jr.,Common Lisp, The Language. Digital Press, Billerica, MA, 1984.Google Scholar
  13. Steele, G.L., Jr., and Hillis, W.D. Connection Machine™ Lisp: Fine-Grained Parallel Symbolic Processing, Proceedings of the 1986 ACM Conference on Lisp and Functional Programming, Cambridge, MA, August 1986.Google Scholar
  14. Sussman, G.J., and Steele, G.L., Jr.,SCHEME: An Interpreter for Extended Lambda Calculus. AI Memo 349, MIT, Cambridge, MA, December 1975.Google Scholar
  15. Symbolics, Inc.MACSYMA Reference Manual. Cambridge, MA, 1986a.Google Scholar
  16. Symbolics, Inc. Symbolics Common Lisp: Language concepts.Encyclopedia Symbolica Vol. 2A, pp. 296–297, Cambridge, MA, 1986b.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1988

Authors and Affiliations

  • Richard P. Gabriel
    • 1
  • Kent M. Pitman
    • 2
  1. 1.Lucid, Inc. and Stanford UniversityUSA
  2. 2.Symbolics, Inc.USA

Personalised recommendations