On 12/30/05, Paolo Amoroso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
That's what they say about IEEE specs and RFCs. Completeness
and precision is good for experts, but not for someone ramping up
on a learning curve.
NOW I'm REALLY scared!
tin gherdanarra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm somewhat incontent with the hyperspec. It lacks examples
> and the wording reminds me to that of CCCITT-lawyers. I guess
> the traffic on comp.lang.lisp would drop by 50 % if there was
> a better hyperspec. So here is an idea.
As far as I know, the ANSI CL standard, on which the text of the
HyperSpec is based, is often praised as a good technical document.
That's what they say about IEEE specs and RFCs. Completeness
and precision is good for experts, but not for someone ramping up
on a learning curve.
> BUT: There are legal issues involved. I'm pretty sure lisp.org
There are more legal issues and implications than you think.
NOW I'm REALLY scared!
Paolo
--
Lisp Propulsion Laboratory log - http://www.paoloamoroso.it/log
_______________________________________________
Gardeners mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.lispniks.com/mailman/listinfo/gardeners
_______________________________________________ Gardeners mailing list [email protected] http://www.lispniks.com/mailman/listinfo/gardeners
