perm filename CLEDIT.MSG[COM,LSP]3 blob
sn#856837 filedate 1988-05-06 generic text, type C, neo UTF8
COMMENT ⊗ VALID 00002 PAGES
C REC PAGE DESCRIPTION
C00001 00001
C00002 00002 ∂31-Mar-88 1358 chapman%aitg.DEC@decwrl.dec.com editorial subcommittee notes
C00018 ENDMK
C⊗;
∂31-Mar-88 1358 chapman%aitg.DEC@decwrl.dec.com editorial subcommittee notes
Received: from decwrl.dec.com by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 31 Mar 88 13:58:43 PST
Received: by decwrl.dec.com (5.54.4/4.7.34)
id AA15156; Thu, 31 Mar 88 13:52:57 PST
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 88 13:52:57 PST
Message-Id: <8803312152.AA15156@decwrl.dec.com>
From: chapman%aitg.DEC@decwrl.dec.com
To: @[chapman]eddis@decwrl.dec.com, chapman%aitg.DEC@decwrl.dec.com
Subject: editorial subcommittee notes
Editorial Subcommittee Report
March, 1988
1 INTRODUCTION
The editorial subcommittee of X3J13 met on March 15, 1988,
from 2-5 PM at Lucid. Attendees were:
Skona Brittain Barry Margolin
Kathy Chapman Larry Masinter
Linda deMicheal Guy Steele
Dick Gabriel Walter van Roggen
Sonya Keene Bob Mathis
(did I leave anyone out?)
This memo summarizes the important results of the meeting,
and lists the action items from the meeting.
2 SUMMARY
In general, the attendees felt that the schedule for
completion of the standard was agressive, but doable. In
addition, there is an increased interest in completing the
standard on, or ahead of, schedule, due to the commitment the US
has made to the ISLISP group. Following are the decisions made by
the attendees.
1. The outline and contents of the chapters of the standard have
been modified. The next section of this memo details the
changes.
2. A formal specification of the base forms of CL will be done.
It will begin in July or sooner. Initially the work will be
done by Dick Gabriel and Kathy Chapman. It is hoped that Will
Clinger and Jonathan Rees will have time to assist with the
effort.
3. It was decided that the use of a large set of special fonts in
explanatory material (will be Chapter 3 in the new outline) is
distracting to the reader. Therefore, special fonts will only
be employed to a limited extent in Chapter 3, but will be used
more extensively in Chapter 4 (see Action Items section).
!
Page 2
4. It was decided that the use of a professional indexer is
probably desirable (see Action Items section).
5. The reader syntax and semantic rules, and other semantic rules
of the language CL, will be specified in natural language in
the form of a set of evaluation rules. These will appear in
Chapters 2 and 3 (see outline in the next section) (see Action
Items section).
6. It was decided that the issues surrounding language extensions
should be examined in detail (see Action Items section).
7. A new list of parts of the document to be reviewed, when they
will be ready for review, and who is to review them, is to be
constructed (see Action Items section).
3 NEW OUTLINE AND CONTENTS OF STANDARD CHAPTERS
Following is the new outline for the CL standard.
1. Chapter 1 - Introduction - Same outline as current chapter 1;
font key explanation is expanded, compliance section is
rewritten with clarity in mind, language extensions section is
modified (see Action Items).
2. Chapter 2 - Evaluation - This chapter will contain a clear
model of read, eval, phases of processing... (see Action
Items).
3. Chapter 3 - Concepts - This chapter will contain the following
information:
1. A description of the Lisp reader, and a forward reference
to the read function. In addition, the character set will
appear first, and all the syntactic characteristics
(whether they involve `special' tokens or not), will
appear in the list of operators.
2. The data types section will contain an explanation of the
way CL uses data types.
3. The basic language constructs section will be moved to
Chapter 2 (the evaluation model).
4. The rest of this chapter will contain information similar
to what is contained in Chapter 1 of the CLOS
specification, i.e., an explanation of how the language
works with forward pointers to forms that will be
explained in detail (but autonomously) in Chapter 4.
!
Page 3
4. Chapter 4 - Form, Constant, and Variable Descriptions - This
chapter now includes the information that had previously been
a part of Chapters 4, 5, and 7. Following are some details
about how this chapter will look.
1. All functions, macros, special forms, constants, and
variables that are part of CL will be listed
alphabetically. All entries with non-alpha characters
appearing in the first position of the name of the entry
will be positioned at the end of the alphabetic list, and
will be alphabetized according to the first alpha or
numeric character appearing in the name of the entry.
2. The `Inputs' and `Outputs' labels in the f/m/sf
descriptions are changed to `Arguments' and `Values',
respectively.
3. The `Base' label is removed, and the fact that a f/m/sf is
part of the base is notated under the label `Notes'.
4. A `Side Effects' label has been added.
5. A `See Also' label was suggested; however, its meaning in
a strict specification is not clear. For example, does a
See Also reference mean that the information pointed to
somehow affects the result of the evaluation of the form
being described? Please comment on the addition of a `See
Also' label.
5. Chapter 5 - Syntax - same as current Chapter 8.
6. Chapter 6 - Semantics - same as current Chapter 9.
!
Page 4
4 ACTION ITEMS
Following is a list of action items resulting from both the
subcommittee meeting, and the X3J13 committee meeting. Please let
me know if I missed any items, or have incorrectly assigned an
item to a person.
Responsible people Action Item
Kathy Chapman Get X3 to pay for professional indexer
Kathy Chapman Create a format for proposal submission
Barry Margolin Create a proposal on how language extensions are
Larry Masinter to be handled
Guy Steele Create an evaluation model strawman
Dick Gabriel
Kathy Chapman Create a review cycle proposal for editorial
committee reviews
Kathy Chapman Create a review proposal for X3J13 committee
Kathy Chapman Contact typesetter to review font usage
5 OPEN ISSUES
Following is a list of decisions that have to be made at
future meetings.
1. Will new language features (like CLOS) be imbedded in the
document or will they appear as a supplement?
2. Should we specifically try to include the ISO community in our
review cycles?
3. Other issues?
6 SUMMARY
The people that reviewed the document provided highly
valuable technical insight and corrections. In order for us to
make this document as correct as possible, it will be necessary
for this sort of review to continue to the document's completion.
!
Page 5
As the document becomes larger and larger, this sort of review
becomes more and more intimidating and time-consuming. Therefore,
I'd like to request help now working out the review cycle details,
and later changing the review cycle algorithm if it doesn't work
for you. It would be much better to speak up if you don't have
time to review your part than to leave it left unread.
The first request I have may be the most important to our
success. A review cycle plan will be coming to you within this
month. Please review it carefully, analyze the time you will have
to spend on this effort, and propose a task you can comfortably
accomplish. If I don't hear from you concerning the review cycle
plan, I will assume you do not wish to review the standard. If
you are passing the document around to other people, please make
sure they realize that their timely review is necessary to the
success of this effort. An unreviewed section could potentially
remain untouched, and perhaps will be wrong. Urge the people you
are counting on to review certain parts to only volunteer for as
much as they can handle.
∂03-May-88 0658 CL-Editorial-mailer EDITORIAL-COMMITTEE-PROPOSAL-FORMAT
Received: from decwrl.dec.com by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 3 May 88 06:58:43 PDT
Received: by decwrl.dec.com (5.54.4/4.7.34)
id AA04677; Tue, 3 May 88 06:58:45 PDT
Date: Tue, 3 May 88 06:58:45 PDT
Message-Id: <8805031358.AA04677@decwrl.dec.com>
From: chapman%aitg.DEC@decwrl.dec.com
To: cl-editorial@sail.stanford.edu, CHAPMAN%aitg.DEC@decwrl.dec.com
Subject: EDITORIAL-COMMITTEE-PROPOSAL-FORMAT
Issue: EDITORIAL-COMMITTEE-PROPOSAL-FORMAT
Category: Administrative
Edit History: Version 1, Kathy Chapman, 4/4/88
Problem Description: The editorial committee needs a standard format
for submitting proposals
Proposal: Proposals to the editorial committee should be submitted
in the following format to cl-editorial@sail.stanford.edu.
Issue: <title of issue>
Category: <administrative/technical>
Edit History: <version # - author - date>
Problem Description: <why this issue was raised>
Proposal: <solution to the issue>
Rationale: <why this solution was chosen>
Current Practice: <how the issue is currently dealt with>
Cost to Implementors: <what the solution will cost vendors to implement>
Cost to Users: <how will this solution change a user's view>
Cost of Non-adoption: <what will happen if nothing is done about the issue>
Benefits: <what added value this solution provides>
Discussion: <discussion about this issue/solution>
Rationale: Familiar, looks very similar to the clean-up committee
proposal format.
Current Practice: No proposals have been submitted yet.
Cost to Implementors: None.
Cost to Users: None.
Cost of Non-adoption: Non-standard formats for proposals will cause confusion.
Benefits: Tracking of issues with the CL standard will be easier.
Discussion:
∂03-May-88 0909 CL-Editorial-mailer Re: EDITORIAL-COMMITTEE-PROPOSAL-FORMAT
Received: from Xerox.COM by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 3 May 88 09:09:46 PDT
Received: from Cabernet.ms by ArpaGateway.ms ; 03 MAY 88 09:03:07 PDT
Date: 3 May 88 09:02 PDT
From: Masinter.pa@Xerox.COM
Subject: Re: EDITORIAL-COMMITTEE-PROPOSAL-FORMAT
In-reply-to: chapman%aitg.DEC@decwrl.dec.com's message of Tue, 3 May 88 06:58:45
PDT
To: chapman%aitg.DEC@decwrl.dec.com
cc: cl-editorial@sail.stanford.edu
Message-ID: <880503-090307-5141@Xerox>
I think the editorial committee will need some less cumbersome mechanisms than
those adopted by the cleanup committee; the problem in cleanup is that there
were a lot of substantive issues that actually had costs and benefits to diverse
communities. I think given the schedule you should go for something leaner:
i.e., Cathy Chapman makes the decisions, and asks the editorial committee for
advice & review.
With cl-cleanup, there were lots of proposals and no action, and the standard
format helped focus the discussions into the technical merits. Here, I don't see
a lot of proposals at all -- maybe you do? Are there some you are having trouble
dealing with?
I have difficulty dealing with the abstract; maybe a concrete example of what
you think of as an "editorial committee proposal" might help me understand what
you're getting at.
∂03-May-88 1114 CL-Editorial-mailer editorial committee meeting
Received: from decwrl.dec.com by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 3 May 88 11:14:31 PDT
Received: by decwrl.dec.com (5.54.4/4.7.34)
id AA17581; Tue, 3 May 88 11:14:32 PDT
Date: Tue, 3 May 88 11:14:32 PDT
Message-Id: <8805031814.AA17581@decwrl.dec.com>
From: chapman%aitg.DEC@decwrl.dec.com
To: cl-editorial@sail.stanford.edu, CHAPMAN%aitg.DEC@decwrl.dec.com
Subject: editorial committee meeting
I have requested a conference room for 6/14 in the afternoon for our
committee meeting. Does anyone have a problem with this?
kc
∂03-May-88 1118 CL-Editorial-mailer EDITORIAL-COMITTEE-STANDARD-REVIEW
Received: from decwrl.dec.com by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 3 May 88 11:18:15 PDT
Received: by decwrl.dec.com (5.54.4/4.7.34)
id AA17653; Tue, 3 May 88 11:18:12 PDT
Date: Tue, 3 May 88 11:18:12 PDT
Message-Id: <8805031818.AA17653@decwrl.dec.com>
From: chapman%aitg.DEC@decwrl.dec.com
To: cl-editorial@sail.stanford.edu, CHAPMAN%aitg.DEC@decwrl.dec.com
Subject: EDITORIAL-COMITTEE-STANDARD-REVIEW
Issue: EDITORIAL-COMMITTEE-STANDARD-REVIEW
Category: Administrative
Edit History: Version 1, Kathy Chapman, 4/5/88
Version 2, Kathy Chapman, 5/1/88
Problem Description:
Part 1: Reviewers must receive the parts of the
standard they are meant to review either electronically or
by hardcopy.
Part 2: Reviewers must be able to comment on those sections
they are reviewing electronically or by hardcopy.
Part 3: Reviewers' comments must be incorporated, logged, and
responded to electronically or by hardcopy.
Part 4: Reviewers must have access to the complete standard and
to the marked-up CLtL with pointers to the standard.
Proposal:
The files containing
the standard are to be located in TEX format on
chapman@hudson.dec.com::sys$sysdevice:[chapman]*.tex.
The review and comment process, if conducted electronically,
will be handled by a mail monitor. A set of functions will be
available to each group of reviewers (X3 committee, editorial
committee, and others) which will facilitate the review process.
If electronic access is not possible, it is possible to request
a hardcopy in writing or telephonically.
A summary of the mail monitor functions applicable to the X3
committee follow: (use `cl-review' as subject)
Function Keywords Description
request hardcopy (t or nil) The latest copies of all
files (list) sections you are responsible
for will be copied to
chapman@hudson.dec.com,
or mailed to your hardcopy
address (see list below).
comment file (string) The file being reviewed.
qualifier (string) Section # or contruct name.
comment (string) The comment.
A response to the comment is
sent to the reviewer and
cl-editorial. The possible
files are listed below.
update update-frequency Amount of time (in days) be-
(integer) tween copies of the standard
to hudson.dec.com (initially
this is every 30 days).
change hardcopy-address (string) Use this function to change
file-list (list) the information in the data
base that is part of this
message. You can only change
your own information.
query all-files (t or nil) Get a list of possible files
file-list (list) to review, your file list,
update-frequency current update frequency,
comment-list current list of comments.
In addition, to aid in reviewing, the mapping from the CLtL to
the standard and visa versa will be located on hudson.dec.com
in the files cltl-standard.txt and standard-cltl.txt.
Examples:
To request a hardcopy:
From: decwrl::"rpg@sail.stanford.edu"
To: chapman@hudson.dec.com
Subject: cl-review
Text: (request :hardcopy t :files '(all))
To comment on a chapter or section:
From: decwrl::"rpg@sail.stanford.edu"
To: chapman@hudson.dec.com
Subject: cl-review
Text: (comment :chapter chap3 :qualifier "3.1.1.2" :comment
"Paragraph 2: change wording from
function to macro")
Possible files are:
all (this means all you are responsible for reviewing)
book (this means the whole standard)
chap1
chap2
chap3
ARRAYS
CHARACTERS
CONTROL-STRUCTURE
DECLARATIONS
ERRORS
EVALUATOR
FILES
HASHTABLES
IO
LISTS
MACROS
MISC
NUMBERS
PACKAGES
PREDICATES
PROGRAM-STRUCTURE
SEQUENCES
STREAMS
STRINGS
STRUCTURES
SYMBOLS
TYPES
chap5
chap6
new-additions
Rationale: In order to get the standard done in a timely manner, it
is necessary that the review process be stream-lined, but
flexible.
Current Practice: None.
Cost to Implementors: If a reviewer requests a hardcopy, it will be
sent COD.
Cost to Users: Same as Cost to Implementers.
Cost of Non-adoption: The review process could, in the best case, become
unwieldy. In the worst case, reviewers could find that reviewing
the document and submitting comments is too much trouble, and
the document would thus not get reviewed.
Benefits:
1. Reviewers can review according to when their own schedules
permit, not just when the document is available.
2. Comments can be handled and logged automatically.
Discussion: Following are the default data base and the proposed review
schedule.
The default data base follows:
Sender Data
maxiv@mu.edu "Mary Boelk
Johnson Controls, MS M67
507 East Michigan St.
Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53202"
(chap1 chap3 packages symbols)
skona%csilvax@hub.ucsb.edu
"Skona Brittain
Microcomputer System Consultants
P.O. Box 747
Santa Barbara, California 93102"
(chap1 chap3 arrays control-structure declarations)
Willc%tekchips.crl@tektronix.tek.com
"Will Clinger
Semantic Microsystems
4470 SW Hall Blvd., Suite 340
Beaverton, Oregon 97005"
(chap1 chap3 chap5 chap6)
rpg@sail.stanford.edu
"Dr. Richard Gabriel
Lucid, Inc.
707 Laurel St.
Menlo Park, California 94025"
(chap1 chap2 chap3 chap5 chap6)
ida%utokyo-relay.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa
"Masayuki Ida
Aoyama Cakuin University
Computer Science Research Group
Atsugi, Kanagawa JAPAN 243-01
(book)
Gregor.pa@xerox.com
"Gregor Kiczales
Xerox PARC
3333 Coyote Hill Rd.
Palo Alto, Calif. 94304"
(chap1 chap3 clos)
barmar@think.com
"Barry Margolin
Thinking Machines
245 First St
Cambridge, Mass. 02142"
(chap1 chap3 structures evaluator)
Masinter.pa@xerox.com
"Larry Masinter
Xerox PARC
3333 Coyote Hill Rd.
Palo Alto, Calif. 94304"
(chap1 chap3 files hashtables io)
mathis@c.isi.edu
"Bob Mathis
9712 Ceralene Dr.
Fairfax, Virginia 22032-1704"
(chap1 chap3 numbers)
ohlander@VENERA.ISI.EDU
"Ron Ohlander
USC-ISI
4676 Admiralty Way
Marina del Rey, California 90292"
(chap1 chap3 lists macros)
KMP@SCRC-Stony-Brook.arpa
"Kent M. Pitman
Symbolics, Inc.
11 Cambridge Center
Cambridge, Mass. 02142"
(chap1 chap3 misc errors types)
jar@ai.ai.mit.edu
"Jonathan Rees
MIT
39 Clarendon St.
Boston, Mass. 02116"
(chap1 chap2 chap3 chap5 chap6)
jeffr@aai2.istc.sri.com
"Jeff Rininger EK339
SRI International
333 Ravenswood Avenue
Menlo Park, California 94025"
(chap1 chap3 predicates program-structure)
Rosenking@a.isi.edu
"Jeff Rosenking
Grumman Corporate Research Center
M/S A01-26
Bethpage, NY 11714"
(chap1 chap3 sequences streams)
SKeene@SCRC-Stony-Brook.arpa
"Sonya Keene
Symbolics, Inc.
11 Cambridge Center
Cambridge, Mass. 02142"
(chap1 chap3 strings characters)
gls@THINK.com
"Dr. Guy L. Steele Jr.
Thinking Machines
245 First St
Cambridge, Mass. 02142"
(chap1 chap2 chap3)
∂03-May-88 1251 CL-Editorial-mailer EDITORIAL-COMITTEE-STANDARD-REVIEW
Received: from Think.COM by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 3 May 88 12:51:31 PDT
Received: from fafnir.think.com by Think.COM; Tue, 3 May 88 15:49:55 EDT
Return-Path: <barmar@Think.COM>
Received: from OCCAM.THINK.COM by fafnir.think.com; Tue, 3 May 88 15:49:50 EDT
Date: Tue, 3 May 88 15:51 EDT
From: Barry Margolin <barmar@Think.COM>
Subject: EDITORIAL-COMITTEE-STANDARD-REVIEW
To: chapman%aitg.DEC@decwrl.dec.com
Cc: cl-editorial@sail.stanford.edu
In-Reply-To: <8805031818.AA17653@decwrl.dec.com>
Message-Id: <19880503195119.9.BARMAR@OCCAM.THINK.COM>
I don't understand this:
Function Keywords Description
request hardcopy (t or nil) The latest copies of all
files (list) sections you are responsible
for will be copied to
chapman@hudson.dec.com,
or mailed to your hardcopy
address (see list below).
If I request a section, why will it be copied to chapman, rather than
mailed to me?
Actually, I think that transmission of sections should be done using
file transfer if feasible. Would it be possible for the sections to be
placed on a machine connected to the Arpanet, to which we could get FTP
access? Email is a very poor mechanism for distribution of large
documents.
comment file (string) The file being reviewed.
qualifier (string) Section # or contruct name.
comment (string) The comment.
A response to the comment is
sent to the reviewer and
cl-editorial. The possible
files are listed below.
I don't like having to enclose the actual comment text in a string. I
think it would be better to have the list at the beginning of the
message text, and then take the rest of the message as the text of the
comment. If you want to allow multiple comments in a single message, we
could devise an escape sequence that indicates that another comment
descriptor follows, e.g.
(comment :file chap3 :qualifier "3.1.1.2")
Blah, blah, blah.
Comment, comment, comment.
-*-End-*-
(comment :file chap1 :qualifier "1.3")
More blah, blah, blah.
Requring the comment to be in a string is prone to errors, because we
may forget to slashify doublequotes and slashes when we include them in
the comment (and we will, I guarantee it). A sequence like the above
"-*-End-*-" is unlikely to appear in a real comment.
To comment on a chapter or section:
From: decwrl::"rpg@sail.stanford.edu"
To: chapman@hudson.dec.com
Subject: cl-review
Text: (comment :chapter chap3 :qualifier "3.1.1.2" :comment
"Paragraph 2: change wording from
function to macro")
The :chapter keyword isn't mentioned in the above description of the
"comment" operation. Should that be :file?
barmar
∂03-May-88 1302 CL-Editorial-mailer re:barmar comments
Received: from decwrl.dec.com by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 3 May 88 13:02:21 PDT
Received: by decwrl.dec.com (5.54.4/4.7.34)
id AA22604; Tue, 3 May 88 13:02:23 PDT
Message-Id: <8805032002.AA22604@decwrl.dec.com>
From: chapman%aitg.DEC@decwrl.dec.com
Date: 3 May 88 16:02
To: cl-editorial@sail.stanford.edu
Subject: re:barmar comments
>Actually, I think that transmission of sections should be done using
>file transfer if feasible. Would it be possible for the sections to be
>placed on a machine connected to the Arpanet, to which we could get FTP
>access? Email is a very poor mechanism for distribution of large
>documents.
That's the idea, that's why the files are being copied to a node
that has FTP access, and then you can do the copy. Mail won't work
in this case. I'd like to do the FTP automatically, but can't promise
that right now.
No strings for comments, yes it should be :file.
kc
∂05-May-88 2216 CL-Editorial-mailer EDITORIAL-COMMITTEE-STANDARD-REVIEW
Received: from decwrl.dec.com by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 5 May 88 22:16:06 PDT
Received: by decwrl.dec.com (5.54.4/4.7.34)
id AA04054; Thu, 5 May 88 22:16:11 PDT
Date: Thu, 5 May 88 22:16:11 PDT
Message-Id: <8805060516.AA04054@decwrl.dec.com>
From: chapman%aitg.DEC@decwrl.dec.com
To: cl-editorial@sail.stanford.edu, CHAPMAN@decwrl.dec.com
Subject: EDITORIAL-COMMITTEE-STANDARD-REVIEW
Issue: EDITORIAL-COMMITTEE-STANDARD-REVIEW
Category: Administrative
Edit History: Version 1, Kathy Chapman, 4/5/88
Version 2, Kathy Chapman, 5/1/88
Version 3, Kathy Chapman, 5/6/88
Problem Description:
Part 1: Reviewers must receive the parts of the
standard they are meant to review either electronically or
by hardcopy.
Part 2: Reviewers must be able to comment on those sections
they are reviewing electronically or by hardcopy.
Part 3: Reviewers' comments must be incorporated, logged, and
responded to electronically or by hardcopy.
Part 4: Reviewers must have access to the complete standard and
to the marked-up CLtL with pointers to the standard.
Proposal:
The files containing
the standard are to be located in TEX format on
chapman@hudson.dec.com::sys$sysdevice:[chapman]*.tex.
This machine has FTP access so that you can copy the
files you need to your location.
The review and comment process, if conducted electronically,
will be handled by a mail monitor. A set of functions will be
available to each group of reviewers (X3 committee, editorial
committee, and others) which will facilitate the review process.
If electronic access is not possible, it is possible to request
a hardcopy in writing or telephonically.
A summary of the mail monitor functions applicable to the X3
committee follow: (use `cl-review' as subject)
Function Keywords Description
request hardcopy (t or nil) The latest copies of all
files (list) sections you are responsible
for will be copied to
chapman@hudson.dec.com,
or mailed to your hardcopy
address (see list below).
comment file (string) The file being reviewed.
qualifier (string) Section # or contruct name.
A response to the comment is
sent to the reviewer and
cl-editorial. The possible
files are listed below.
update update-frequency Amount of time (in days) be-
(integer) tween copies of the standard
to hudson.dec.com (initially
this is every 30 days).
change hardcopy-address (string) Use this function to change
file-list (list) the information in the data
base that is part of this
message. You can only change
your own information.
query all-files (t or nil) Get a list of possible files
file-list (list) to review, your file list,
update-frequency current update frequency,
comment-list current list of comments.
In addition, to aid in reviewing, the mapping from the CLtL to
the standard and visa versa will be located on hudson.dec.com
in the files cltl-standard.txt and standard-cltl.txt.
Examples:
To request a hardcopy:
From: decwrl::"rpg@sail.stanford.edu"
To: chapman@hudson.dec.com
Subject: cl-review
Text: (request :hardcopy t :files '(all))
To comment on a chapter or section:
From: decwrl::"rpg@sail.stanford.edu"
To: chapman@hudson.dec.com
Subject: cl-review
Text: (comment :file chap3 :qualifier "3.1.1.2")
Paragraph 2: change wording from
function to macro.
Possible files are:
all (this means all you are responsible for reviewing)
book (this means the whole standard)
chap1
chap2
chap3
ARRAYS
CHARACTERS
CONTROL-STRUCTURE
DECLARATIONS
ERRORS
EVALUATOR
FILES
HASHTABLES
IO
LISTS
MACROS
MISC
NUMBERS
PACKAGES
PREDICATES
PROGRAM-STRUCTURE
SEQUENCES
STREAMS
STRINGS
STRUCTURES
SYMBOLS
TYPES
chap5
chap6
new-additions
Rationale: In order to get the standard done in a timely manner, it
is necessary that the review process be stream-lined, but
flexible.
Current Practice: None.
Cost to Implementors: If a reviewer requests a hardcopy, it will be
sent COD.
Cost to Users: Same as Cost to Implementers.
Cost of Non-adoption: The review process could, in the best case, become
unwieldy. In the worst case, reviewers could find that reviewing
the document and submitting comments is too much trouble, and
the document would thus not get reviewed.
Benefits:
1. Reviewers can review according to when their own schedules
permit, not just when the document is available.
2. Comments can be handled and logged automatically.
Discussion: Following are the default data base and the proposed review
schedule.
The default data base follows:
Sender Data
maxiv@mu.edu "Mary Boelk
Johnson Controls, MS M67
507 East Michigan St.
Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53202"
(chap1 chap3 packages symbols)
skona%csilvax@hub.ucsb.edu
"Skona Brittain
Microcomputer System Consultants
P.O. Box 747
Santa Barbara, California 93102"
(chap1 chap3 arrays control-structure declarations)
Willc%tekchips.crl@tektronix.tek.com
"Will Clinger
Semantic Microsystems
4470 SW Hall Blvd., Suite 340
Beaverton, Oregon 97005"
(chap1 chap3 chap5 chap6)
rpg@sail.stanford.edu
"Dr. Richard Gabriel
Lucid, Inc.
707 Laurel St.
Menlo Park, California 94025"
(chap1 chap2 chap3 chap5 chap6)
ida%utokyo-relay.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa
"Masayuki Ida
Aoyama Cakuin University
Computer Science Research Group
Atsugi, Kanagawa JAPAN 243-01
(book)
Gregor.pa@xerox.com
"Gregor Kiczales
Xerox PARC
3333 Coyote Hill Rd.
Palo Alto, Calif. 94304"
(chap1 chap3 clos)
barmar@think.com
"Barry Margolin
Thinking Machines
245 First St
Cambridge, Mass. 02142"
(chap1 chap3 structures evaluator)
Masinter.pa@xerox.com
"Larry Masinter
Xerox PARC
3333 Coyote Hill Rd.
Palo Alto, Calif. 94304"
(chap1 chap3 files hashtables io)
mathis@c.isi.edu
"Bob Mathis
9712 Ceralene Dr.
Fairfax, Virginia 22032-1704"
(chap1 chap3 numbers)
ander@VENERA.ISI.EDU "e"
"Ron Ohlander
USC-ISI
4676 Admiralty Way
Marina del Rey, California 90292"
(chap1 chap3 lists macros)
KMP@SCRC-Stony-Brook.arpa
"Kent M. Pitman
Symbolics, Inc.
11 Cambridge Center
Cambridge, Mass. 02142"
(chap1 chap3 misc errors types)
jar@ai.ai.mit.edu
"Jonathan Rees
MIT
39 Clarendon St.
Boston, Mass. 02116"
(chap1 chap2 chap3 chap5 chap6)
jeffr@aai2.istc.sri.com
"Jeff Rininger EK339
SRI International
333 Ravenswood Avenue
Menlo Park, California 94025"
(chap1 chap3 predicates program-structure)
Rosenking@a.isi.edu
"Jeff Rosenking
Grumman Corporate Research Center
M/S A01-26
Bethpage, NY 11714"
(chap1 chap3 sequences streams)
SKeene@SCRC-Stony-Brook.arpa
"Sonya Keene
Symbolics, Inc.
11 Cambridge Center
Cambridge, Mass. 02142"
(chap1 chap3 strings characters)
gls@THINK.com
"Dr. Guy L. Steele Jr.
Thinking Machines
245 First St
Cambridge, Mass. 02142"
(chap1 chap2 chap3)
∂06-May-88 0934 CL-Editorial-mailer EDITORIAL-COMMITTEE-STANDARD-REVIEW
Received: from Think.COM by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 6 May 88 09:34:02 PDT
Received: from fafnir.think.com by Think.COM; Fri, 6 May 88 12:31:38 EDT
Return-Path: <barmar@Think.COM>
Received: from OCCAM.THINK.COM by fafnir.think.com; Fri, 6 May 88 12:31:34 EDT
Date: Fri, 6 May 88 12:33 EDT
From: Barry Margolin <barmar@Think.COM>
Subject: EDITORIAL-COMMITTEE-STANDARD-REVIEW
To: chapman%aitg.DEC@decwrl.dec.com
Cc: cl-editorial@sail.stanford.edu, CHAPMAN@decwrl.dec.com
In-Reply-To: <8805060516.AA04054@decwrl.dec.com>
Message-Id: <19880506163301.0.BARMAR@OCCAM.THINK.COM>
This database entry doesn't look right:
ander@VENERA.ISI.EDU "e"
"Ron Ohlander
USC-ISI
4676 Admiralty Way
Marina del Rey, California 90292"
(chap1 chap3 lists macros)
What's the "e" for? All the other entries have a single character
string between the email address and the section list.
barmar