Prev: Requesting critique of spec of my new MayLoad utility (similar to Unix 'make')
Next: discount,Junior Series ( paypal accept ) ( www.power-saler.cn )discount,Junior Series ( paypal accept ) ( www.power-saler.cn )
From: Robert Uhl on 6 May 2008 11:08
Tim Bradshaw <tfb+google(a)tfeb.org> writes:
>
>> Common Lisp needs a publicly-modifiable specification for many
>> reasons, of which here are a few examples.
>
> No, it doesn't. What it needs is for people to experiment with and
> later standardise on new features. Those standards, when they are
> agreed, can simply refer back to the original standard and describe
> what they are modifying.

Yes, and without a standards committee (which there shall never be) or a
BDFL (which there can never be), later standardisation will never
happen. De facto standardisation will never really happen either--IIRC
there are still implementations lacking Gray Streams, no?

--
Robert Uhl <http://public.xdi.org/=ruhl>
If infinite rednecks fired infinite shotguns at an infinite number of road
signs, they'd eventually create all the great literary works of the world in
braille. --Discordian Quote File
 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: Requesting critique of spec of my new MayLoad utility (similar to Unix 'make')
Next: discount,Junior Series ( paypal accept ) ( www.power-saler.cn )discount,Junior Series ( paypal accept ) ( www.power-saler.cn )