Subject: SC22 N2339 - Minutes of WG16 November Meeting

From: "william c. rinehuls" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 1996 12:27:33 -0500 (EST)

________________beginning of title page ______________________________

ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC22
Programming languages, their environments and system software interfaces
Secretariat:  U.S.A. (ANSI)

ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC22
N2339

December 1996

TITLE:              Minutes and Resolutions of SC22 WG16 (Lisp) Meeting
                    on November 8, 1996 in Bath, United Kingdom

SOURCE:             Secretariat, ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC22

WORK ITEM:          N/A

STATUS:             N/A

CROSS REFERENCE:    N/A

DOCUMENT TYPE:      WG16 Meeting Minutes and Resolutions

ACTION:             To SC22 Member Bodies for information.

Address reply to:
ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC22 Secretariat
William C. Rinehuls
8457 Rushing Creek Court
Springfield, VA USA 22153
Tel:  +1 (703) 912-9680
Fax:  +1 (703) 912-2973
email:  [email-masked]

________________end of title page, beginning of minutes _________________

Minutes of 15th Meeting of 
ISO/IEC JTC1SC22/WG16 LISP 
November 8, 1996, Bath, United Kingdom.

   Source:        WG16 convenor

   Action:        Information

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Meeting record by Julian Padget

1. Opening of the meeting
=========================

PP welcomed the participants to Bath and thanked JAP for hosting the
meeting

He also informed us that the new secretary for WG16 at AFNOR is Arnaud
Diquelou, email: [email-masked], tel: +33 1 42 91 57 18.

2. Roll call of delegates
=========================

PP: Pierre Parquier (convenor and FR HoD)
WW: Whitman Wright (CD HoD)
TI: Takayasu Ito (JP HoD)
TY: Taiichi Yuasa (JP)
RJB: Russell Bradford (GB) observer
JAP: Julian Padget (GB HoD)

3. Adoption of the agenda
=========================

Recognition of distributed documents

N180 Canadian proposal for graphics in ISLISP
N181 WG16 report to 9th SC22 plenary
N182 WG16 15th meeting agenda
N183 Table of replies on DIS 13816 ballot
N184 ITTF comments on DIS
N185 Canadian proposal for graphics primitives in ISLISP 2000

Item 9: addition of discussion of N181

Item 10: addition of document reference.  Discussion of ITTF comments

Item 11: addition of document references, including discussion of N185

Agenda adopted.

4. Appointment to drafting committee
====================================

All present will assist in drafting, then JAP will pass them on to KMP. 

5. Liaison reports
==================

No liaison

5.1 Reports from national member bodies
=======================================

CD: expressed pleasure at the progress in the work of WG16.  Have made
a proposal for graphics extensions to be discussed later.  Anxious to
see implementations of ISLISP.

JP: two meetings.  First shortly after Paris meeting at which delegates
reports on Paris meeting.  Second discussed how to respond to DIS
ballot.

GB: no meetings.  No e-mail discussion and hence no comments on DIS.

FR: two meetings: one reporting and a second to prepare comments and
vote.

6 Review of priorities and target dates
=======================================

We have to issue a Disposition of Comments based on N183. (addressed
later in item 10)

When the Disposition of Comments is received by ITTF they then
collaborate with the project editor to correct minor editing bugs.
Finally the IS should be published.

Once published, users of the IS will issue defect reports to ITTF.
WG16 should define who these defect reports should be forwarded to.

RESOLUTION 1: The committee hoped that PP and KMP would handle defect
reports, but should either of these experience a change of
circumstances, JAP and TY volunteered to be available to take over from
one or the other as appropriate.  
Resolution approved. 

7 Work item on which no progress is being made
==============================================

None

8 Review of Project Editor and liaison arrangements
===================================================

The project editor sent the DIS to ITTF for the DIS ballot.  Ballot
closed on September 23, with no coments on the contents.

ITTF sent a few comments to the project editor on minor editing bugs.

RESOLUTION 2: WW noted that given the size of the document the list of
ITTF comments is very short and proposed a vote of thanks in recognition
of the excellent work that KMP has done in preparing the DIS/IS.
Approved unanimously. 

The ITTF comments were noted and the progress towards their
implementation was observed in the documents supplied by the project
editor.  Some items are outstanding.

Project editor will send revised document to ITTF for publication as an
IS as soon as these changes are completed.

9 Review of recent JTC1 decisions affecting the group
=====================================================

Refer to N181. No request from WG16 to SC22, and no particular
comments from SC22 to WG16.

Work management: ISO is re-engineering itself and examines every
project and ask each NB whether the project is of interest: in effect
a second new work item ballot.  At least 5 NBs must commit to support
of a project.  WG16 has received sufficient support.

DIS ballot is complete, resulting in 21 approvals, 5 abstentions, and
no vote against.

10 Preparation of Disposition of Comments to DIS 13816 vote
===========================================================

TY: already addressed by ITTF in N179.

NL: already addressed by ITTF in N179.

FR: we accept the comments and request the project editor to proceed with
their implementation.

To be document N186 - approved unanimously.

11 Items of future work
=======================

Topics raised: graphics primitives (N185), modules,
internationalization, bindings.

11.1 GRAPHICS
-------------

CD presented N185 which was prepared for FORTRAN 2000.  Part 1 contains
general remarks, Part 2 contains specific proposals (eg. names of
routines and descriptions of behaviour), Part 3 contains commentary on
and some revisions of the earlier material. 

FR: drew attention to the fact that over 10 years ago, Le-Lisp
followed the raster graphics route; feel that GKS is out-dated for
general purpose.  Also, general purpose graphics requires higher level
oparations (eg on the Web, AWT replaced CGI, and is still too simple).
Instead of deciding for a single philosophy (vectorial or raster) and
a single level of complexity, FR would prefer a binding based
solution.

GB: observed that although line-drawing capabilities may be suitable
for FORTRAN applications, the preponderance of ISLISP applications may
be more raster-oriented.

CD: does not feel that the computer industry has delivered suitable
products for professions where the market for individual applications
is small as compared to business.  

JP: appreciate position and agrees we should have something in the
future, but it would be hard to define something suitable now, both in
terms of community needs and in terms of the maturity of graphics
standards.

GB: don't believe there is a single good solution.  Find it more
attractive to be able to build an API to some chosen package.

CD: for the sake of portability of ISLISP applications with graphics,
many business applications are willing to sacrifice some level of
efficiency and functionality.  They are willing to accept a single
reasonable package.

FR: suggested defining a separate standard rather than an appendix.

CD: welcome more comments through islisp mailing list.

11.2 MODULES
------------

JP: reported that have an implementation of the scheme described in
N159 for an interpreter, currently working on compiler.  Based on our
experience, we might come up with a modified proposal or rationale.

JAP: different groups will have radically different requirements for
modules, contrast Ilog Talk, EuLisp, Japanese module system and the
various Scheme proposals.

RJB: modules are a good idea, but major complications arise from
interactions with macros

Both PP and JAP expressed varying degrees of dissatisfaction with their
existing implementations.

RESOLUTION 3: we are not ready to address the specification of a module
system at this stage.  The meeting agreed that we should let the
members of the working group gain more experience with their different
schemes before proceeding with this issue.
Passed unanimously.

11.3 INTERNATIONALIZATION
-------------------------

TY: talked to WG20 representative who had advised waiting for outputs
from that WG about character set support in programming languages,
instead of moving ahead independently.

Thus, the working group concluded that it would be better to wait for
guidance from WG20 with regard to character sets.  No interest was
expressed for other aspects of internationalization.

11.4 BINDINGS
-------------

The discussion identified three issues (among many) that were felt to
be particularly important:

1. binding from ISLISP to C
2. binding from ISLISP to C++
3. binding from C/C++ to ISLISP

from which follow several technical issues

o implications for garbage collection
o conflict between C++ and ISLISP exceptions
o generic function dispatch
o cross-language subclassing
o multi-threading

TI: Identified four categories: fusion, integration, binding and
interfacing.  C is binding, but C++ demands integration.  Interfacing
just means linking things that are already compatible. 

Concluded that a C binding should be attempted before doing anything
more ambitious.

JAP: to send the EuLisp to C binding to the WG.

RESOLUTION 4: to start work on defining an ISLISP/C binding to be
included in a subsequent revision of the standard.  Approved
unanimously.

11.5 PROMOTION OF ISLISP
------------------------

Dave DeRoure (DDER) was supposed to prepare a WWW page for WG16.  JAP
will follow up.  Should include references to existing implementations
and IS publication date.  PP to send IS publication date and French
implementation reference to JAP/DDER.  Action item for each member of
the WG is to advertize the web page when it is available.  GB must
announce availability of WWW page (deadline Jan 1 1997).

CD: ISLISP should be made available for academia

JP: it is necessary to advertize ISLISP to LISP communities and AI
communities, and after IS is published it is hoped that ISLISP
implementations will become soon available in japanese academia with
collaboration of JP manufactures; an international collaboration would
be useful to have good ISLISP implementations.

12 Subsequent meeting requirements
==================================

No further meeting is required yet.  We shall discuss future meetings
on islisp mailing list when the need arises.

13 Any other business
=====================

None

14 Approval of resolutions
==========================

All approved unanimously.

_______________end of minutes; beginning of resolutions _____________

Resolutions of 15th Meeting of 
ISO/IEC JTC1 SC22/WG16 LISP
November 8, 1996, Bath, United Kingdom.

   Source:        WG16 convenor

   Action:        Information

--------------------------------------------------------------------

The following resolutions have been approved unanimously during the
15th ISO/IEC JTC1 SC22 WG16 meeting (Bath, November 8, 1996).

1- Maintenance of IS 13816

WG16 hoped that Pierre Parquier (FR) and Kent Pitman (US) would handle
defect reports, but should either of these experience a change of
circumstances, Julian Padget (GB) and Taiichi Yuasa (JP) volunteered
to be available to take over from one or the other as appropriate.

2- Appreciation: Mr Kent Pitman

WG16 noted that given the size of the document the list of ITTF
comments is very short and thanks Kent Pitman in recognition of the
excellent work that he has done as Project Editor in preparing the
DIS/IS.

3- Disposition of Comments

WG16 adopts the Disposition of Comments to DIS 13816 as registered in
ISO/IEC JTC1 SC22 WG16 N186 (a.k.a. JTC1 SC22 N2335).

4- Module extension to ISLISP

WG16 is not ready to address the specification of a module system at
this stage.  WG16 agreed that the members of the working group should
gain more experience with their different schemes before proceeding
with this issue.

5- Binding extension to ISLISP

WG16 resolved to start work on defining an ISLISP/C binding to be
included in a subsequent revision of the standard.

___________________end of document SC22 N2339 __________________________