Peter Seibel wrote: >That's true. But there's a big difference, between little "s" >standards (probably de facto) and "The Standard", i.e. the ANSI >Standard. As I'm sure you know. My point is that if we want to >encourage the emergence of standards for anything it needs to be an >organic process--get implementations to converge on doing the same >thing in the same way and *then* say, let's write up what we all have >already agreed upon and call it the FOO Standard. That the Common >Lisp standard worked at all is, I believe, a consequence that almost >all of it was the codification of existing practice. > > I think that's more or less what I meant--rather than trying to wedge implementation issues (or anything else) into The Standard make sure that implementations do things in _a_ standard way.
If that happened, then I'd think that getting things like that into The Standard would be much easier anyway. What about folding this into the fledgling CLRFI process? Dave _______________________________________________ Gardeners mailing list [email protected] http://www.lispniks.com/mailman/listinfo/gardeners
