perm filename ISLISP.MSG[COM,LSP]8 blob
sn#883564 filedate 1990-04-03 generic text, type C, neo UTF8
COMMENT ⊗ VALID 00002 PAGES
C REC PAGE DESCRIPTION
C00001 00001
C00002 00002 ∂16-May-88 1116 mcvax!inria.inria.fr!chaillou@uunet.UU.NET iso-list
C00005 ENDMK
C⊗;
∂16-May-88 1116 mcvax!inria.inria.fr!chaillou@uunet.UU.NET iso-list
Received: from uunet.UU.NET by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 16 May 88 11:10:19 PDT
Received: from mcvax.UUCP by uunet.UU.NET (5.54/1.14) with UUCP
id AA28968; Mon, 16 May 88 03:33:44 EDT
Received: by mcvax.cwi.nl; Mon, 16 May 88 09:29:46 +0200 (MET)
Received: by inria.inria.fr; Sun, 15 May 88 22:55:48 +0200 (MET)
Date: Sun, 15 May 88 22:55:48 +0200
From: mcvax!inria.inria.fr!chaillou@uunet.UU.NET (Jerome Chailloux)
Message-Id: <8805152055.AA08475@inria.inria.fr>
To: inria!inria.inria.fr!chailloux@uunet.UU.NET, rpg@sail.stanford.edu
Subject: iso-list
Dick,
Here is the content of the "iso-list" that I have established
last week "iso-lisp@inria.inria.fr" :
chailloux
queinnec
tran
cointe
chailloux@ilog.fr
nuyens@ilog.fr
mldr@smapl.emse.fr
girardot@smapl.emse.fr
regourd@crcge1.cge.fr
padget@maths.bath.ac.uk
raper@cm.soton.ac.uk
R.Tobin@ed.ac.uk
ukc!ed.aiva!jeff
unido!ztivax!dae
unido!ztivax!kolb
unido!gmdzi!christal
unido!gmdzi!gmdxps!wedi
bsj@cri-std.dk
mcvax!dutrun!dutesta!arno
mcvax!dutinfd!poel
mcvax!dutinfd!jan
iso-lisp@sail.stanford.EDU
And here is the rest of the list that you have to
establish at sail.
masinter.pa@xerox.com
baggins@ibm.com
dussud%jenner@ti-csc.com
rpg@sail.stanford.edu
willc%tekchips.tek.com@tektronix.cs.net
mathis@a.isi.edu
kmp@stony-brook.scrc.symbolics.com
holtz@cascade.carleton.cdn
kurokawa@JPNTSCVM.bitnet
ito@ito.aoba.tohuku.junet
yuasa@tutics.tut.junet
furuyama@nttslh.ntt.junet
Jerome.
∂16-Aug-88 0220 ISO-Lisp-mailer next meeting
Received: from uunet.UU.NET by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 16 Aug 88 02:19:52 PDT
Received: from mcvax.UUCP by uunet.UU.NET (5.59/1.14) with UUCP
id AA18767; Tue, 16 Aug 88 05:18:42 EDT
Received: by mcvax.cwi.nl; Tue, 16 Aug 88 11:09:01 +0200 (MET)
Received: by inria.inria.fr; Tue, 16 Aug 88 09:47:10 +0200 (MET)
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 88 09:47:10 +0200
From: mcvax!inria.inria.fr!chaillou@uunet.UU.NET (Jerome Chailloux)
Message-Id: <8808160747.AA26029@inria.inria.fr>
To: inria!inria.inria.fr!iso-lisp@uunet.UU.NET
Subject: next meeting
This is the "iso-lisp" mailing list :
Internet : iso-lisp@inria.inria.fr
or (for USA) : iso-lisp@sail.stanford.edu
Mr Omnes (from the Commission des Communautes Europeennes)
has accepted to host the third WG16/Lisp at Brussels,
Monday 21st and Thuesday 22nd of November.
The exact location and accomodations will follow very soon.
Jerome.
∂11-Sep-88 1840 ISO-Lisp-mailer
Received: from RELAY.CS.NET by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 11 Sep 88 18:40:39 PDT
Received: from relay2.cs.net by RELAY.CS.NET id aa17676; 11 Sep 88 21:38 EDT
Received: from utokyo-relay by RELAY.CS.NET id ae10884; 11 Sep 88 21:29 EDT
Received: by ccut.cc.u-tokyo.junet (5.51/6.3Junet-1.0/CSNET-JUNET)
id AA18916; Mon, 12 Sep 88 08:27:01 JST
Received: by nttlab.ntt.jp (3.2/6.2NTT.h) with TCP; Mon, 12 Sep 88 04:49:39 JST
Received: by cctu_as.cc.tohoku.junet (3.2/6.3Junet-1.0)
id AA17440; Mon, 12 Sep 88 04:21:23 JST
Received: by aoba.ito.ecei.tohoku.junet (4.12/6.3Junet-1.0)
id AA00235; Sun, 11 Sep 88 22:46:22 jst
Received: by ito.ito.ecei.tohoku.junet (4.12/6.3Junet-1.0)
id AA00221; Sun, 11 Sep 88 16:07:21 jst
Date: Sun, 11 Sep 88 16:07:21 jst
From: Takayasu ITO <ito%ito.ito.ecei.tohoku.junet@UTOKYO-RELAY.CSNET>
Return-Path: <ito@ito.ito.ecei.tohoku.junet>
Message-Id: <8809110707.AA00221@ito.ito.ecei.tohoku.junet>
To: iso-lisp%sail.stanford.edu%relay.cs.net%u-tokyo.junet@UTOKYO-RELAY.CSNET
Subject: Test
Dear Christian and Jerome,
Thanks for establishing iso lisp mail address through cs-net.
As I sent my telefax and e-mail(hoping that either of them has been received by
you) I have found that I will be busy at the end of next June since I will be
the chairman of our Department.After the middle of next September to the end
of next November I will be not busy,compared with other days.
So I would like to propose the exchange of Toyo(or Sendai) meeting and Munich
meeting as follows
the 6th WG,at Munich, the end of next June or the beginning(or sometime) of
next July(I may not be able to attend,but Dr. Yuasa will attend.)
the 7th WG,at Tokyo or Sendai, September 20,21 and 22,1989
(I will take care of having this meeting.)
I hope that this will work.
Looking forward to seeing you at Brussels.
Sincerely,
Takayasu Ito
∂11-Sep-88 1840 ISO-Lisp-mailer
Received: from RELAY.CS.NET by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 11 Sep 88 18:40:48 PDT
Received: from relay2.cs.net by RELAY.CS.NET id ab17674; 11 Sep 88 21:39 EDT
Received: from utokyo-relay by RELAY.CS.NET id af10884; 11 Sep 88 21:29 EDT
Received: by ccut.cc.u-tokyo.junet (5.51/6.3Junet-1.0/CSNET-JUNET)
id AA18921; Mon, 12 Sep 88 08:27:06 JST
Received: by nttlab.ntt.jp (3.2/6.2NTT.h) with TCP; Mon, 12 Sep 88 04:49:42 JST
Received: by cctu_as.cc.tohoku.junet (3.2/6.3Junet-1.0)
id AA17446; Mon, 12 Sep 88 04:21:29 JST
Received: by aoba.ito.ecei.tohoku.junet (4.12/6.3Junet-1.0)
id AA00244; Sun, 11 Sep 88 22:46:32 jst
Received: by ito.ito.ecei.tohoku.junet (4.12/6.3Junet-1.0)
id AA00231; Sun, 11 Sep 88 16:12:23 jst
Date: Sun, 11 Sep 88 16:12:23 jst
From: Takayasu ITO <ito%ito.ito.ecei.tohoku.junet@UTOKYO-RELAY.CSNET>
Return-Path: <ito@ito.ito.ecei.tohoku.junet>
Message-Id: <8809110712.AA00231@ito.ito.ecei.tohoku.junet>
To: iso-lisp%sail.stanford.edu%relay.cs.net%u-tokyo.junet@UTOKYO-RELAY.CSNET
Subject: Mail address
My mail address has been changed as follows:
ito@ito.ecei.tohoku.junet
although my previous mail address should be valid until next year.
Takayasu Ito
∂28-Oct-88 0346 ISO-Lisp-mailer Corrections on my mail on ISO Lisp of Long Term Design
Received: from RELAY.CS.NET by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 28 Oct 88 03:46:48 PDT
Received: from relay2.cs.net by RELAY.CS.NET id af08278; 28 Oct 88 6:34 EDT
Received: from utokyo-relay by RELAY.CS.NET id ab03962; 28 Oct 88 6:25 EDT
Received: by ccut.cc.u-tokyo.junet (5.51/6.3Junet-1.0/CSNET-JUNET)
id AA05636; Fri, 28 Oct 88 04:56:45 JST
Received: by nttlab.ntt.jp (3.2/6.2NTT.h) with TCP; Fri, 28 Oct 88 04:49:17 JST
Received: by cctu_as.cc.tohoku.junet (3.2/6.3Junet-1.0)
id AA21535; Thu, 27 Oct 88 22:47:16 JST
Received: from aoba.ito.ecei.tohoku.junet (aoba.ARPA) by maia.ito.ecei.tohoku.junet (4.12/6.3Junet-1.0)
id AA04545; Thu, 27 Oct 88 22:46:16 jst
Received: by aoba.ito.ecei.tohoku.junet (4.12/6.3Junet-1.0)
id AA07037; Thu, 27 Oct 88 22:46:13 jst
Received: by ito.ito.ecei.tohoku.junet (3.2/6.3Junet-1.0)
id AA00262; Tue, 27 Sep 88 22:29:52+0900
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 88 22:29:52+0900
From: Takayasu ITO <ito%ito.ito.ecei.tohoku.junet@UTOKYO-RELAY.CSNET>
Return-Path: <ito@ito.ito.ecei.tohoku.junet>
Message-Id: <8809271229.AA00262@ito.ito.ecei.tohoku.junet>
To: iso-lisp%sail.stanford.edu%relay.cs.net%u-tokyo.junet@UTOKYO-RELAY.CSNET
Subject: Corrections on my mail on ISO Lisp of Long Term Design
2nd line: "intersts" should be "interests"
3rd line: "simantanously of ISLIP" should be "simultaneously of ISLISP".
Thanks.
Takayasu Ito
∂28-Oct-88 0346 ISO-Lisp-mailer ISO Lisp of Long Term Design
Received: from RELAY.CS.NET by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 28 Oct 88 03:46:32 PDT
Received: from relay2.cs.net by RELAY.CS.NET id ae08278; 28 Oct 88 6:33 EDT
Received: from utokyo-relay by RELAY.CS.NET id aa03962; 28 Oct 88 6:24 EDT
Received: by ccut.cc.u-tokyo.junet (5.51/6.3Junet-1.0/CSNET-JUNET)
id AA05630; Fri, 28 Oct 88 04:56:40 JST
Received: by nttlab.ntt.jp (3.2/6.2NTT.h) with TCP; Fri, 28 Oct 88 04:49:14 JST
Received: by cctu_as.cc.tohoku.junet (3.2/6.3Junet-1.0)
id AA21530; Thu, 27 Oct 88 22:47:04 JST
Received: from aoba.ito.ecei.tohoku.junet (aoba.ARPA) by maia.ito.ecei.tohoku.junet (4.12/6.3Junet-1.0)
id AA04541; Thu, 27 Oct 88 22:46:05 jst
Received: by aoba.ito.ecei.tohoku.junet (4.12/6.3Junet-1.0)
id AA07030; Thu, 27 Oct 88 22:45:58 jst
Received: by ito.ito.ecei.tohoku.junet (3.2/6.3Junet-1.0)
id AA00255; Tue, 27 Sep 88 22:22:38+0900
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 88 22:22:38+0900
From: Takayasu ITO <ito%ito.ito.ecei.tohoku.junet@UTOKYO-RELAY.CSNET>
Return-Path: <ito@ito.ito.ecei.tohoku.junet>
Message-Id: <8809271222.AA00255@ito.ito.ecei.tohoku.junet>
To: iso-lisp%sail.stanford.edu%relay.cs.net%u-tokyo.junet@UTOKYO-RELAY.CSNET
Subject: ISO Lisp of Long Term Design
At the 2nd ISO/IEC JTC1/SC22/WG16 at Snowbird we made two votes on designing
ISO Lisp. Most of the members expressed their intersts on designing Long Term
Design of ISO Lisp,after or simanltanously of ISLIP.
Then, what is ISO Lisp in Long Term Design?
I would like to propose to exchange some opinions on this matter,at the 3rd WG16meeting at Brussels.
Looking forward to seeing you at Brussels.
Sincerely,
Takayasu Ito
(P.S.: From Japan Mr. T. Kurokawa and I will attend at the 3rd WG16 meeting,and Mr. Kurokawa will explain our efforts on Int'l Character Set Handling.)
∂10-Nov-88 2120 ISO-Lisp-mailer US Position Statement
Received: from uunet.UU.NET by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 10 Nov 88 21:20:09 PST
Received: from mcvax.UUCP by uunet.UU.NET (5.59/1.14) with UUCP
id AA28313; Fri, 11 Nov 88 00:19:16 EST
Received: by mcvax.cwi.nl via EUnet; Fri, 11 Nov 88 04:49:52 +0100 (MET)
Received: by inria.inria.fr with Fnet-EUnet; Thu, 10 Nov 88 22:59:48 +0100 (MET)
Received: by mcvax.cwi.nl via EUnet; Thu, 10 Nov 88 22:48:14 +0100 (MET)
Received: from LUCID.COM by uunet.UU.NET (5.59/1.14)
id AA12374; Thu, 10 Nov 88 12:29:12 EST
Received: from challenger ([192.9.200.17]) by heavens-gate.lucid.com id AA03263g; Thu, 10 Nov 88 09:27:30 PST
Received: by challenger id AA02698g; Thu, 10 Nov 88 09:23:43 PST
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 88 09:23:43 PST
From: Richard P. Gabriel <mcvax!lucid.com!rpg@uunet.UU.NET>
Message-Id: <8811101723.AA02698@challenger>
To: queinnec@poly.poly.fr, inria!inria.inria.fr!iso-lisp@uunet.UU.NET
Subject: US Position Statement
The following is the US Position Statement, which was requested at the
Snowbird ISO meeting. This position statement was developed by X3J13
with the collaboration of Chris Haynes and Will Clinger from the IEEE
Scheme standardization group. This statement accurately represents the
position of X3J13.
*********************************************************************
The US is currently undertaking two standardization efforts in Lisp:
X3J13 is standardizing Common Lisp for ANSI, and IEEE is standardizing
Scheme. The US believes that these two efforts cover a wide range of
concerns and uses for Lisp: Scheme is small, elegant, and
mathematically well-founded, and Common Lisp is full-featured, mature,
and commercially viable. Within the United States, there is no demand
for another Lisp standard at this time.
The current activity of WG16 is to develop a standard for a dialect of
Lisp directed at a community of users who are served neither by Common
Lisp nor by Scheme---that dialect is IsLisp. Although is is unlikely
that IsLisp will have major near term commercial significance within
the US, the US supports the IsLisp standardization effort as long as
it does not negatively affect standards for other dialects of Lisp.
In particular, the US feels that it is important not to have two
standardized dialects of Lisp that are nearly identical unless one is
a strict subset of the other. Having two such similar but different
dialects weakens the position of users who have come to depend on one
of the dialects.
The US believes that the primary focus of standardization is to codify
existing practice to support the creation and delivery of portable
software. Thus, the major focus of the US standardization efforts is
to provide stability to the community of Common Lisp and Scheme users.
Of secondary importance are the invention of new Lisp dialects and the
standardization of Lisp dialects or features not in common usage. The
US therefore agrees with the ISO goal of a near term standard in the
1990 time frame along with longer range consideration of future
dialects and features.
Common Lisp is in wide use in Europe, Japan, and Australia.
Implementations of Common Lisp are under way in the UK, Germany,
Italy, and Japan (and possibly other countries). In each of these
countries there are companies whose customers depend on portable
software written in Common Lisp. The future of these companies thus
depends on having a Common Lisp standard.
The US believes that Common Lisp is a valid candidate for
international standardization both because it is used internationally
and also because it is a mature and stable dialect. Common Lisp has
been under design and specification for 8 years. Commercial quality
implementations of Common Lisp have been available for 4 years. The
near term standardization of ISO Common Lisp would have substantial
positive impact on the acceptance of existing commercial Lisp
implementations and on the viability of future Lisp dialects as
vehicles for emerging applications.
For these reasons, the US proposes the development of an ISO standard
for Common Lisp. Furthermore, the US proposes that WG16 request X3J13
to prepare the ISO draft standard for Common Lisp. The ISO Common
Lisp draft and the ANSI Common Lisp draft should be identical. The US
believes such a draft standard could be developed by December 1989.
The US also believes the development of an ISO standard for Common
Lisp is within the charter of WG16, which endorses the standardization
of multiple dialects of Lisp. At some point in the future, it may be
appropriate to develop an ISO standard for Scheme.
Looking beyond near term standardization, the US feels that an
important task for WG16 is working towards a next generation dialect
of Lisp, and this can be accomplished by drawing on the lessons
learned from existing dialects of Lisp.
∂15-Nov-88 2132 ISO-Lisp-mailer ISO Lisp meeting
Received: from uunet.UU.NET by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 15 Nov 88 21:32:38 PST
Received: from mcvax.UUCP by uunet.UU.NET (5.59/1.14) with UUCP
id AA26887; Wed, 16 Nov 88 00:31:53 EST
Received: by mcvax.cwi.nl via EUnet; Wed, 16 Nov 88 05:46:21 +0100 (MET)
Received: by inria.inria.fr with Fnet-EUnet; Wed, 16 Nov 88 04:32:02 +0100 (MET)
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 88 18:55:35 +0100
Received: by ilog.ilog.fr, Mon, 14 Nov 88 18:55:35 +0100
From: mcvax!ilog.ilog.fr!chaillou@uunet.UU.NET (Jerome Chailloux)
Message-Id: <8811141755.AA03518@ilog.ilog.fr>
To: inria!inria.inria.fr!iso-lisp@uunet.UU.NET
Subject: ISO Lisp meeting
Dear Colleagues,
Just a last minute reminder:
The next WG 16 ISO Lisp meeting is to take place in Brussels on
November 21 and 22 at the following address:
Berlaymont Building ; Meeting Room S 15 at 10:30 a.m.
Rond Point Schuman - 1040 Brussels
If you have any problem you can call M. Omnes'secretary,
Mrs Rees in Brussels:
Tel. (322) 236 12 07
If you have not yet an hotel, you can try :
Hotel President Nord : Tel. (322) 219 00 60 - telex 61417
Hotel President Centre : Tel. (322) 219 00 65 - telex 26784
Hotel Royal Windsor : Tel. (322)511 42 15 - telex 62905
Hotel Arenberger : Tel. (322) 511 07 70 - tlex 25660
For further information, you can contact me or Mrs Odile chenetier
at ILOG:
Tel. +33 (1) 46 63 66 66
I am looking forward to our next meeting,
Jerome Chailloux
∂10-Aug-89 0823 RPG National Submissions
To: "@ISLISP.DIS[P,DOC]"@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
Colleagues:
Last week I sent the US submissions for possible drafts to AFNOR and to
several heads of delegation. I sent via UPS Chapters 1 through 5, Chapter
8, and parts of Chapter 6 of the X3J13 draft, and all of the IEEE Scheme
draft to the following individuals:
Dr. Jerome Chailloux
Dr. Dieter Kolb
Prof. Takayasu Ito
Prof. Julian Padget
I have not yet received any submissions by other delegations.
-rpg-
∂05-Jan-90 1059 RPG Action Item Responses
To: "@ISLISP.DIS[P,DOC]"@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
At the autumn meeting of X3J13 I presented the two questions posed at
the September WG 16 meeting in Sendai Japan. The first question was
asked as follows:
Each member body willing to participate to the ``CL subset approach''
is requested to produce for the next WG 16 meeting:
-Its definition of ``kernel'' concept
-The list of features that must be present in the Kernel
The following is the precise answer formulated by X3J13:
Several times X3J13 considered the question of Common Lisp subsets.
There was a subcommittee on subsets which was unable to produce an
acceptable subset definition; the iteration subcommittee considered
making some iteration constructs optional and decided against it; and
the optionality of CLOS was considered and rejected because there has
been a recognized need for object-oriented programming in Lisp.
X3J13 finally decided that no technically acceptable subset is
consistent with the primary goals of X3J13, which place a strong
emphasis on portability of code.
Therefore, X3J13 advises against ISO WG 16 standardizing a subset of
Common Lisp.
The second question was asked as follows:
Each member body is requested to identify their long term goals and
starting preferences.
The following is the precise answer formulated by X3J13:
X3J13 is interested in exploring long-term Lisp standardization by
focusing on areas such as parallel processing, modules, distributed
computing, multi-language programming, and user interfaces. At this
time, X3J13 has no more detailed ideas about a starting point for long
term standardization.
X3J13 also prepared the following statement, which they asked me to
distribute to WG 16:
X3J13 was not explicitly requested to do so, but we would like to
clarify our intention in the following sentence from page 1-17:
The language described in this standard contains no subsets,
although subsets are not forbidden.
We mean by this that we do not support subset standards, but we do support
(and envision) subset implementations. Such implementations would be marked
as specified in Section 1.5, bullet 6.
To clarify what we mean when we use the word subset:
Language L is a subset of language L' iff
for every valid program P in language L
P is also a valid program in language L'
and P has the same defined behavior in both L and L'.
∂08-Jan-90 0609 ISO-Lisp-mailer
Received: from argus.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 8 Jan 90 06:09:17 PST
Received: from inria.inria.fr by argus.Stanford.EDU with TCP; Mon, 8 Jan 90 05:54:54 PST
Received: from poly.polytechnique.fr by inria.inria.fr (5.61+/89.0.8) via Fnet-EUnet id AA09630; Mon, 8 Jan 90 14:45:30 +0100 (MET)
Date: Mon, 8 Jan 90 14:43:51 +0100
From: queinnec@poly.polytechnique.fr (Queinnec Christian)
Message-Id: <9001081343.AA02758@poly.polytechnique.fr>
To: iso-lisp@inria.inria.fr
Originally From: Dick Gabriel <RPG@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Original Date: 03 Jan 90 1442 PST
Subject: Action Item Responses from US
************************************************************************
At the autumn meeting of X3J13 I presented the two questions posed at
the September WG 16 meeting in Sendai Japan. The first question was
asked as follows:
Each member body willing to participate to the ``CL subset approach''
is requested to produce for the next WG 16 meeting:
-Its definition of ``kernel'' concept
-The list of features that must be present in the Kernel
The following is the precise answer formulated by X3J13:
Several times X3J13 considered the question of Common Lisp subsets.
There was a subcommittee on subsets which was unable to produce an
acceptable subset definition; the iteration subcommittee considered
making some iteration constructs optional and decided against it; and
the optionality of CLOS was considered and rejected because there has
been a recognized need for object-oriented programming in Lisp.
X3J13 finally decided that no technically acceptable subset is
consistent with the primary goals of X3J13, which place a strong
emphasis on portability of code.
Therefore, X3J13 advises against ISO WG 16 standardizing a subset of
Common Lisp.
The second question was asked as follows:
Each member body is requested to identify their long term goals and
starting preferences.
The following is the precise answer formulated by X3J13:
X3J13 is interested in exploring long-term Lisp standardization by
focusing on areas such as parallel processing, modules, distributed
computing, multi-language programming, and user interfaces. At this
time, X3J13 has no more detailed ideas about a starting point for long
term standardization.
X3J13 also prepared the following statement, which they asked me to
distribute to WG 16:
X3J13 was not explicitly requested to do so, but we would like to
clarify our intention in the following sentence from page 1-17:
The language described in this standard contains no subsets,
although subsets are not forbidden.
We mean by this that we do not support subset standards, but we do support
(and envision) subset implementations. Such implementations would be marked
as specified in Section 1.5, bullet 6.
To clarify what we mean when we use the word subset:
Language L is a subset of language L' iff
for every valid program P in language L
P is also a valid program in language L'
and P has the same defined behavior in both L and L'.
∂02-Apr-90 0050 ISO-Lisp-mailer Dates for the next ISO meeting
Received: from Argus.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 2 Apr 90 00:50:49 PDT
Received: from inria.inria.fr by Argus.Stanford.EDU (5.61/inc-1.0)
id AA15056; Mon, 2 Apr 90 00:50:21 -0700
Received: from poly.polytechnique.fr by inria.inria.fr (5.61+/89.0.8) via Fnet-EUnet id AA23406; Mon, 2 Apr 90 09:42:22 +0200 (MET)
Received: by poly.polytechnique.fr (5.57/Ultrix3.1-B)
id AA23426; Mon, 2 Apr 90 09:40:50 +0200
Date: Mon, 2 Apr 90 09:40:50 +0200
From: queinnec@poly.polytechnique.fr (Queinnec Christian)
Message-Id: <9004020740.AA23426@poly.polytechnique.fr>
To: iso-lisp@inria.inria.fr
Subject: Dates for the next ISO meeting
SInce the Lisp and FP conference will be held on thursday 27 to friday
29 of june, I propose to hold the ISO meeting on tuesday 26 just before
the conference.
Christian Queinnec
∂02-Apr-90 0951 ISO-Lisp-mailer Re: Dates for the next ISO meeting
Received: from Argus.Stanford.EDU by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 2 Apr 90 09:51:21 PDT
Received: from inria.inria.fr by Argus.Stanford.EDU (5.61/inc-1.0)
id AA16078; Mon, 2 Apr 90 09:50:53 -0700
Received: from kwai.inria.fr by inria.inria.fr (5.61+/89.0.8) via Fnet-EUnet id AA09404; Mon, 2 Apr 90 17:41:48 +0200 (MET)
X400-Received: by /PRMD=inria/ADMD=atlas/C=FR/;
Relayed; 02 Apr 90 17:43:00+0100
X400-Received: by /PRMD=uk.ac/ADMD=gold_400/C=gb/;
Relayed; 02 Apr 90 15:39:29 GMT
Date: 02 Apr 90 15:39:29 GMT
From: Jeff Dalton <jeff@aiai.edinburgh.ac.uk>
Message-Id: <RFC-822*584.9004021536@subnode.aiai.ed.ac.uk>
To: Queinnec Christian <queinnec@poly.polytechnique.fr>,
iso-lisp@inria.inria.fr
Subject: Re: Dates for the next ISO meeting
In-Reply-To: Queinnec Christian's message of Mon, 2 Apr 90 09:40:50 +0200
> SInce the Lisp and FP conference will be held on thursday 27 to friday
> 29 of june, I propose to hold the ISO meeting on tuesday 26 just before
> the conference.
This requires that I change my travel plans. Of course, during the
conference is worse. How did this mess happen?
∂03-Apr-90 1459 ISO-Lisp-mailer sophia meeting
Received: from IBM.COM by SAIL.Stanford.EDU with TCP; 3 Apr 90 14:59:28 PDT
Received: from ALMVMD by IBM.COM (IBM VM SMTP R1.2.1MX) with BSMTP id 3093; Tue, 03 Apr 90 15:01:00 PDT
Date: Tue, 03 Apr 90 15:00:57 PDT
From: Thom Linden <baggins@IBM.com>
To: Christian Queinnec <mcvax!inria.inria.fr!queinnec@uunet.uu.net>,
"ISO WG16 (ISLISP) mailing" <iso-lisp@sail.stanford.edu>
Message-ID: <900403.150057.baggins@IBM.com>
Subject: sophia meeting
I understand L&FP registration is Tuesday, 26th June. This
should not be a conflict with a WG16 meeting in Sophia since
it is presumably a short train/car ride back to Nice that evening.
What is the agenda? For example, what documents
are expected to be commented upon? Even a pre-preliminary agenda sent
over the network would be of great help.
Regards,
Thom