COMMENT ⊗   VALID 00003 PAGES
C REC  PAGE   DESCRIPTION
C00001 00001
C00002 00002	∂16-Jan-87  0412	mcvax!ux63.bath.ac.uk!ma_jap@seismo.CSS.GOV 	delft minutes  
C00013 00003
C00014 ENDMK
C⊗;
∂16-Jan-87  0412	mcvax!ux63.bath.ac.uk!ma_jap@seismo.CSS.GOV 	delft minutes  
Received: from seismo.CSS.GOV by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 16 Jan 87  04:11:57 PST
Received: from mcvax.UUCP by seismo.CSS.GOV (5.54/1.14) with UUCP 
	id AA03696; Fri, 16 Jan 87 07:11:54 EST
From: mcvax!ux63.bath.ac.uk!ma_jap@seismo.CSS.GOV
Received: by mcvax.cwi.nl; Thu, 15 Jan 87 16:39:07 +0100 (MET)
Received: by inria.UUCP; Thu, 15 Jan 87 16:20:15 -0100 (MET)
Received: by inria.UUCP; Thu, 15 Jan 87 16:17:36 -0100 (MET)
Received: by mcvax.cwi.nl; Thu, 15 Jan 87 00:18:45 +0100 (MET)
Received: from hlh.uucp by eagle.Ukc.AC.UK   with UUCP  id a010225;
          14 Jan 87 16:52 GMT
Mmdf-Warning:  Parse error in original version of preceding line at Ukc.AC.UK
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 87 16:50:23 gmt
Message-Id: <11111.8701141650@hlh.co.uk>
Received: from bath63 by hlh.co.uk; Wed, 14 Jan 87 16:50:23 gmt
To: eulisp <mcvax!cwi.nl!eulisp@seismo.CSS.GOV>
Subject: delft minutes

.sc
.ps 14
.vs 16
.ce
\fBMinutes of EuLISP-XIV, Delft, 870105\fP
.ps 10
.vs 12

\fBAttendees\fP\*[1\*]
.(f
\*[1\*]Secretary's Note: The general lack of funding available to the
participants, combined with the rail strike in France, severely
affected the number of people able to attend.  It was therefore
decided to curtail the meeting to one day.
.)f

.nf
Je\*'ro\*↑me Chailloux, INRIA, Paris (JC)
Jan van Katwijk, University of Technology, Delft (JvK)
Timm Krumnack, Krupps-Atlas Elektronik, Bremen (TK)
Julian Padget, University of Bath (JAP)
Willem van der Poel, University of Technology, Delft (WvdP)

\fBAgenda\fP

1.	Minutes of Eulisp-XIII (Paris)
2.	Report on X3J13 meeting in Dallas
3.	Funding
4.	Future meetings
5.	Status of national standards efforts
6.	Timescales/Objectives
.fi

.fi
.ce
\fIMinutes of Eulisp-XIII\fP

JC had not received these despite their having been circulated on
the eulisp mailing list.  JAP reported that he had got feedback from
several people on the December minutes, including Dick Gabriel, Mario
Furnari and Roland Rehmnert.

.ce
\fIReport on X3J13 in Dallas\fP

Two supportng documents were received: the proposed X3J13 charter and
the minutes of the Dallas meeting.  X3J13 has identified a number of
task groups and set up some of those task groups.  It was noted that
amongst the unconstituted groups was the one for ISO interaction.

The various officers of X3J13 were noted: Chairman - Bob Mathis,
Vice-Chairman - Guy Steele, International representative - Dick
Gabriel, Secretary - Mary van Deusen, Vocabulary: Bill Scherlis,
Editors: Dick Gabriel and Will Clinger.

The next meeting of X3J13 will take place in Palo Alto over 17-19
March.

.ce
\fIFunding\fP

JC reported that the EEC has given approval for suppport to this
standardisation activity and that INRIA will act as banker.  However
the official announcement has not yet been received by INRIA and no
support can be given until this has happened.  The mechanism should
certainly be in place by the March meeting.

.ce
\fIFuture Meetings\fP

In view of the cost of attending meetings (although this may be
ameliorated to a certain extent soon) and, more importantly the need
for more time to work in between meetings, it was proposed that EuLISP
should move to a two month cycle starting immediately.  Therefore, the
next meeting of EuLISP will be in March.  In the previous minutes it
had been proposed to hold the March meeting in Italy.  It was agreed
that we should continue with the same schedule of locations and
therefore the next meeting will be held in Paris at IRCAM for 2 days
on March 2\*[nd\*]/3\*[rd\*]

.ce
\fIStatus of national standards efforts\fP

JAP reported that the last meeting of BSI/IST/5 (Programming
Languages) had agreed to the formation of a LISP panel.  JAP has been
nominated as the convenor.

.ce
\fITimescales/Objectives\fP

There was a long discussion about the need and subsequently the
strategy for building trial implemenations of the different levels of
the EuLISP proposal.  There appear to be two options:
.ip (i)
define in Common LISP, using the package system to obtain the
necessary security/visibility to make the scheme work.  This would be
good because it may be relatively portable and also it would make the
results easily accessible to industry.  It is also rather hard because
of the difficulty of producing a compiler in such an environment.
.ip (ii)
define in Scheme.  The type system is not a fundamental mechanism and
could be built on top of Scheme.  Again there are attractions because
of the portability of Scheme code and the relatively wide availability
of Scheme implementations.  Scheme also has the sound semantic base
that the EuLISP proposal requires rather than having to construct it
as would be necessary in a CL based system.  The detraction from using
Scheme is the subsequent accessibility of the system to industry where
the only major user of Scheme is Texas Instruments.
.lp
The consensus was that it should be possible to prototype most of the
EuLISP ideas in about a year given the appropriate environment and
resources.
.pp
To make progress on the above matter a much more detailed definition
of the language levels is necessary.  To this end it was agreed that
Christian Queinnec, Herbert Stoyan and JAP will work on such a
document with the intention of having a significant strawman
completed in time for the March meeting.

.ce
\fIFINIS - 1730\fP

.ce
\fIOutstanding Action Items\fP

Christian Queinnec will add macro expansion to the level0 interpreter

JAP will describe the interpreter outlined at the December meeting in
more detail

JAP to mail Clinger on LISP/VM macro expansion strategy

.ce
\fINew Action Items\fP

Herbert Stoyan, Christian Queinnec and JAP to collaborate on producing
a defining document for level0/1 for the March meeting.






padget@RAND-UNIX/su
Delft Meeting

I read the minutes, and I think there is an important factual error.
The ``editors'' group is the ISO interaction group. That is, the ISO
delegation is intended to be Mathis, Clinger, and I; Clinger and I are
the nominated people for the ISO project editor position. Aside from
the object-oriented programming specification, which I am helping to write,
Clinger and I are not involved in any ANSI Common Lisp work, only ISO work
(moving Common Lisp in the proper direction).

So I believe the statement that the ISO interaction group is unconstituted
is incorrect.
			-rpg-
∂07-May-87  1734	RPG  
 ∂07-May-87  1647	mcvax!ux63.bath.ac.uk!uucp@seismo.CSS.GOV    
Received: from seismo.CSS.GOV by SAIL.STANFORD.EDU with TCP; 7 May 87  16:46:50 PDT
Received: from mcvax.UUCP by seismo.CSS.GOV (5.54/1.14) with UUCP 
	id AA00735; Thu, 7 May 87 19:46:03 EDT
From: mcvax!ux63.bath.ac.uk!uucp@seismo.CSS.GOV
Received: by mcvax.cwi.nl; Thu, 7 May 87 22:31:27 +0200 (MET)
Received: by inria.inria.fr; Thu, 7 May 87 21:13:54 +0200 (MET)
Message-Id: <8705071913.AA28442@inria.inria.fr>
Received: from ux63.bath.ac.uk by kestrel.Ukc.AC.UK   via Janet (UKC CAMEL FTP)
           id aa12692; 7 May 87 20:01 BST
Date:        7 May 1987 20:02:33 BST
To: eulisp <inria!eulisp@seismo.CSS.GOV>,
        chenetier <inria!chenetier@seismo.CSS.GOV>

Received: from m42.maths.bath.ac.uk (m42) by bond.maths.bath.ac.uk; Thu, 7 May 87 18:56:41 BST
From: Julian Padget <jap@uk.ac.bath.maths>
Date: Thu, 7 May 87 18:51:22 BST
Message-Id: <15198.8705071751@m42.maths.bath.ac.uk>
To: eulisp@uk.ac.bath.maths
Subject: Bruxelles minutes
Cc: chenetier@uucp.inria

.ce
.ps 12
\f3Minutes EuLisp XIV Brussels 870408\f1
.ps 10



.EQ
delim @@
.EN
.nh
.tr ~
.IP "\f3Present\f1" 1i
J~Chailloux~(INRIA), J~H~Davenport~(Bath),
T~Krumnack~(Krupp~Atlas~Elektronik), W~van~der~Poel~(Delft),
H~Stoyan~(Konstanz), D~Nardi~(Rome), P~Coint (Xerox\(hyParis),
E~Neidl~(CGE),
.nh
T~Bub~(Danet), J~F~Omnes~(EEC), J~Dalton (Edinburgh), C~Queinnec~(LITP).

.LP
J~Chailloux took the chair.  J~H~Davenport took minutes in
the absence of C~Queinnec.

.IP "\f3Next Meeting\f1" 1i
.sp -1
It was decided to hold a two-day meeting in early June.  After a
consideration of dates, it was decided to hold a meeting \f311-12 June\f1
(just before parallel machines and object-oriented programming
conferences).  The obvious alternatives were Brussels and Paris: a vote
was held, with the result being \f3Brussels\f1.  H Stoyan will only
attend 870612.

.nh
.IP "\f3Funding\f1" 1i
.sp -1
J~Chailloux raised the question of funding.  He understood that the EEC
would only fund 12 participants, whereas the EuLisp mailing list was about
40, and he had heard complaints from those not invited.  J~F~Omnes said
that more could be funded (though obviously not vast teams) \(em it
appeared that there had been a misunderstanding.  W~van~der~Poel asked if
one could send a substitute: J~F~Omnes saw no problem.  The EEC will
only \f3fund\f1 people from EEC countries, though others may \f3attend\f1
(they will need a telex of invitation as well).

.LP
\f3Approval of Minutes of Delft\f1

None had been circulated.

\f3Report X3J13 meeting Palo Alto.  3rd meeting 16-18~March~1987 by
J~Chailloux.\f1

70 people present.  At previous meeting they had decided to form many
sub-committees.  These reported, but many decisions will be taken later.

\f3Cleanup SubCommittee\f1.  This has done a lot of work on cleaning up
the book, but there is a lot to do.  A special form has been designed for
making changes to the book.  Four trivial amendments have been agreed, but
most decisions will be taken later.  It had been agreed that ANSI CL would
have a functional object, described by J~Chailloux as "like SCHEME's, but
fuzzier".  This involves changes to apply, funcall and functionp.  The
book will be rewritten by a DEC employee, but the copyright will rest with
ANSI.  The concept of Level 1/Level 2 is still in the air, but ANSI CL
will definitely be Level 2.

\f3CL Object System SubCommittee\f1.  This has prepared a revised draft
(which J~Chailloux has), which is certainly better.  But
Bobrow/Gabriel/Moon still do not agree on multiple inheritance.

\f3Validation SubCommittee\f1.  Nothing has really been done.  Xerox have
bought a validation suite from Lucid.  How does one validate an undefined
object?

[C Queinnec arrived]

McCarthy was there, and was strongly against the standardisation of "LISP"
as a word.  ANSI will call theirs ANSI-LISP.  W~van~der~Poel supported this
view, and the group re-affirmed its decision to call its result "ISO
LISP".

[J Dalton arrived]

The SC-22 plenary meeting in Washington in October 87 should create the
ISO LISP working group.  Nations then have 2 or 3 months to nominate
members, so the first meeting cannot take place until early 1988.  It
appears that ANSI will choose Gabriel and Klinger.

Fahlmann apparently says that, if the "macro problem" is solved, then he
would be prepared to accept a single value/function space.

The next X3J13 meeting will be in Boston, June 30/July 1.  J~Chailloux
estimated that ANSI LISP would take two years: J~Dalton thought that was
optimistic.

\f3General discussion\f1
.nh

The discussion became general: "is ISO-LISP a creative or a normative
process".  C~Queinnec thought that we were combining existing features in
a new way.

J~Chailloux said that he thought that we needed an implementation to prove
our importance in face of ANSI LISP.  This provoked a lively debate.
People distinguished between "toy implementations", eg in SCHEME or COMMON
LISP.  D~Neidl called for at least a macro implementation of Level 0, for
experimental purposes.  H Stoyan doubted that implementations were either
necessary or sufficient, and stated that he would not be working on
implementations.

C~Queinnec felt that implementations served two distinct purposes:

.IP 1)
verifying the consistency of the definition.
.IP 2)
verifying that efficient implementations exist.

.LP
J~Chailloux felt that we needed a real vehicle, not just a toy built on
SCHEME, and asked who was working on one.  J~H~Davenport asked whether the
definition was sufficiently precise.

The discussion was inconclusive on the point of implementation, but agreed
that more documentation, and more precise documentation, on EuLisp were
required. The question was raised about formatting systems, and it was
decided that LaTeX was the best vehicle.  Not everyone has LaTeX, and the
group was reminded of the need for circulating documents in a directly
human-readable form.

In the afternoon, C~Queinnec introduced two documents:

.IP
Denotational Semantics for LISP
.nf
Genericity and Types.
.LP
.fi

The first is, essentially, a "pretty print" of an actual LISP program
(nevertheless, several typographic errors were found).

The first remark made was that this document described things in terms of
a concrete syntax, not an abstract syntax.  W~van~der~Poel drew
attention to a preprint of his on "Constructing @lambda@\f1-expressions in the
@lambda@\f1-calculus", and offered to send it round.

A long debate ensued on the semantics of alternative.  It was decided to
modify this to accept only three arguments, ie only (IF A B C).
.bp
It was also pointed out that there was no way of changing topenv at the
moment: this would be remedied.

It was noticed that EuLisp prohibited

.IP
(setq a b)
.nf
(defconst a b)

.fi
.LP
unlike common lisp.  The reason was that a piece of code compiled after
(setq~a~b) would become invalidated by the (defconst a b).

It was observed that constant-assignment defines a binding to be
immutable, but does \f3not\f1 guarantee that the value will not be changed
by rplac etc.  This provoked a lively discussion.  It was decided not to
change matters for the time being.

.nh
It was agreed that C~Queinnec would circulate the revised version of the
semantics, and the underlying Lisp code, to EuLisp.  It was also requested
that a physical copy be sent to all attendees at this meeting.

The general question of physical distribution of material to the group was
raised.  Given the number of US participants, and the thickness of some of
the X3J13 documents, the exercise is expensive.  It was agreed:

.IP 1)
to ask J~F~Omnes if the EEC could organise the distribution
.IP 2)
that J~Chailloux would append a \f3list\f1 of his papers to these minutes,
which could be requested from him.

.LP



"mcvax!inria!chaillou"@seismo.CSS.GOV/su
EuLisp Meeting

Hm, I thought the meeting was to have been June 18, 19, and I
had planned my trip accordingly. Lynne's birthday is June 11,
so if I change my plans, I run the risk of disappointment on
her part. I will see what can be done.

On the other hand, it appears I would need to be invited (via telex) to
attend. Given that I have not been so invited, perhaps I should simply
attend ECOOP.

Nevertheless, I will be in Paris for ECOOP and the OOP workshop
June 18. Is it still true that I can stay with you? I currently
am scheduled to arrive June 13. Will you be back in Paris by then?

On the minutes, Moon/Bobrow/Gabriel disagree on some aspects of
multiple inheritance, not on multiple inheritance in general.

Lucid is providing a service of making sure that Xerox Common Lisp passes
the test suite that Lucid uses for its internal testing, which means that
the two Lisps are roughly compatible. This is different from a validation
suite. I suppose this is an example of what happens when people speculate
about undisclosed business relationships, but it also has a little bad
rhetoric about it.

For the record, Clinger's name is ``Clinger'' not ``Klinger.''

I hope all is well with you. My daughter, Mariko Gabrielle Toribara,
and her mother are well.

			-rpg-