-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Harald Hanche-Olsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Maybe I focussed too hard on the phrase "merging rules used by > merge-pathnames" where I should have noticed the phrase "unsupplied > components" instead? Anyway, OpenMCL agrees with my interpretation, > producing the first result for both forms. So who is in error, CMUCL > or OpenMCL (and I)? This is kind of an FAQ, if "once every six months" counts as "frequent". KMP has replied to it a couple of times on c.l.l - http://groups.google.com/groups?q=pitman+merge-pathnames&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=sfwafd6p62k.fsf%40world.std.com&rnum=4 http://groups.google.com/groups?q=pitman+merge-pathnames&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=sfw8zjvun7d.fsf%40world.std.com&rnum=10 I know that Kent is not normative, but for what it's worth, in both articles he agrees with the CMUCL interpretation. - -dan - -- http://www.cliki.net/ - Link farm for free CL-on-Unix resources -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE+9xI5HDK5ZnWQiRMRAqbsAKCQXXRJSxCukimos4eD6L3TEc4eDwCfWo0j /mGS9G7bvYkh0wUpFsmJf5o= =PhHW -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
