On Fri, 5 Nov 2004, Zbyszek Jurkiewicz wrote:
> I agree, but then you must decide where is the boundary between what is
> feasible and what is not --- and the decision depends on current
> technology state (we should only define the behaviors we know we can
> implement). The agreement in this case should come from language standard
> group or similar body, otherwise we end up with nonportable programs.
This is rapidly going OT, but... the historical precedent for CL is to
standardize on existing practise, not to implement blue-sky standards.
Existing practise grows because people extend it, just like Thomas is
trying. Critising an extension plan because there is no standard for it is
silly, even though critisising it for not playing nice with standard
facilities may be quite valid.
Cheers,
-- Nikodemus Schemer: "Buddha is small, clean, and serious."
Lispnik: "Buddha is big, has hairy armpits, and laughs."
