COMMENT ⊗   VALID 00002 PAGES
C REC  PAGE   DESCRIPTION
C00001 00001
C00002 00002	1. yes i would like to see blair paper.. ACH said paper was by two 
C00007 ENDMK
C⊗;
1. yes i would like to see blair paper.. ACH said paper was by two 
Germans.

2. the problem with partial solutions is that they ARE partial.
I believe that once the language is "defined" your stuck unless
you lobby successfully for a "revised report". THAT brings us
to the question of how to design a lang. indeed, what IS a language.
These are topics to be discussed in the infamous "last chapter" of Super
LISP. 

3. Related to 2 and functional args etc is the question "what is
wrong with LISP?" also in infamous "last chpt"(at last count
L.C. had 1204 pages, but....)  Basically 2 and 3 I feel, can be answered
together.

you define a language a'la LISP but the interpreter must be
FAITHFUL to the real implementation, not just any interpreter.
This  puts constraits on the class of data structures which must be
available for the definition.This is also point 1. of what's wrong
with lisp---to wit, weak d.s.. One of my other points (hints of this
are in section "in retrospect") is that rather than limiting fucntional 
parameters, we should be enlarging them. LISP was too conservative and
ad hoc. It seems to me that functionals are the appropriate level
at which to address control regimes, the B-W primitives are at the
level of "goto"s, necessary for implementation, jsut as goto's are
necessary for implementation of high level control.
(it also turns out that the intuitions about good definitions have
justification of Scottery....denotational and lisp are not antipotal)

I have been trying since last april to get out an AIMemo on these
ideas about languages but other horse shit gets in the way.

You might be interested in the latest issue of SIGACT. there are two
letters(particularly the first) which are expressing the 
"philosophical"(tsk, tsk) position which I espouse in SUPERLISP.
compare the quote of wegner on page 1 of s-lisp. with the
W. O. Douglas  one. Warning: do not under any circumstances read
The little LISP'er, it is FOUL!!!

finally, alas, INTERLISP uses a solution to funargs st. "function"
is called with two parameters as you propose.

I won't be working on book for a month or so, since i have to do some
very distasteful programming in an "automatic programming (bletch,
bleagh) system". I am currently writing a harangue of APG and verification
claiming its headed down the road of Mechanical translation. ... Should
go over like a case of VD. I am also contemplating an article to the
ACM claiming the the 68ACM graph of courses is a bloody fucking piece
of shit, or words to that effect. You,perhaps can guess what I feel should be
at the top of the graph, like King Kong  (fantactic idea for a cover!!!!)
....label the airplanes PL1, FORTRAN, COBOL,.... gotta get a copy of
that. Geezuz, my brilliance even suprises me sometimes.