Path: csiph.com!v102.xanadu-bbs.net!xanadu-bbs.net!news.glorb.com!news-out.readnews.com!transit4.readnews.com!panix!not-for-mail From: lynx Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth,comp.lang.lisp Subject: Re: forth vs common lisp Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2012 04:17:08 +0000 (UTC) Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC Lines: 15 Message-ID: References: <96e0a52b-0997-43f8-b6a0-dda000b133ab@v1g2000yqm.googlegroups.com> <9553250e-bb76-4b25-b42f-48b6041a5c05@f17g2000yqj.googlegroups.com> <83a21f38-9018-48e1-af67-1bddecc26deb@r9g2000yqd.googlegroups.com> <76bd17f8-fa38-4f61-95c7-0a950928dcc6@v1g2000yqm.googlegroups.com> <87r4vjhypv.fsf@kuiper.lan.informatimago.com> Reply-To: rinkasu@kaze.void.null NNTP-Posting-Host: panix5.panix.com X-Trace: reader1.panix.com 1334895428 939 166.84.1.5 (20 Apr 2012 04:17:08 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@panix.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2012 04:17:08 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: nn/6.7.3 Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.forth:11457 comp.lang.lisp:9648 In <87r4vjhypv.fsf@kuiper.lan.informatimago.com> "Pascal J. Bourguignon" writes: >All conforming implementations conform to that standard, therefore all >your conforming program will run equally on all the conforming >implementations. >(Most CL implementations are conforming, modulo bugs). I believe it may more correct to say that decent CL implementations come quite close to conforming to the standard. (Close enough that the differences to most users may be unimportant.) But I'm not aware of even one implementation that is *completely* conforming, bugs notwithstanding; and it is often explicitly stated in the documentation how the implementation differs from the standard. This is hardly peculiar to CL, of course.