{Digging back through my mail folder to fold in all the comments people sent
me; sorry I didn't respond earlier, but your words were not lost as biton
radiation... :-}
>> From: Michiel Blokzijl (mblokzij) [mailto:[email protected]]
>> I think there's nothing wrong with discussing it in general, I just
>> thought that typically you'd explain the protocol first, and then the
>> limitations when the reader has a bit more of an understanding of the
>> protocol ... I thought section 4 might be a potential starting point
>> for people who want to find out what LISP is about without reading all
>> of the background material. Basically, it was meant more as a
>> structural/ordering comment.
> From: Ronald Bonica <[email protected]>
> To date, a major shortcoming in the LISP document set is that explains
> protocol machinery in great detail, but never really explains:
> - What problem it is trying it solve
> - Whether the protocol machinery offered is both necessary and
sufficient to solve the problem
> the purpose of the introduction and architectural perspective documents
Architectural introduction and perspective, actually... :-)
> Given that LISP's primary claim was to separate locator semantics from
> identifier semantics, it is very appropriate that Noel should introduce
> this discussion very early in the document.
Guys, I have read carefully what you both had to say, and you both have good
points;
and I have looked again at the text in light of those points,
The text as it stands has to balance a couple of powerful forces. One is the
need to be accurate. The other is not to get into long digressions that divert
the reader. I thought the existing text did that pretty well, but I've taken
another look at it.
I have toyed with the text some, seeing if I could improve it (e.g. I tried
adding the phrase "but both design analysis and experience have shown it to be
'good enough'" at the end), but most of what I did just made it worse. I did
wind up re-arranging it slightly, and making minor changes to the wording,
so that it still contains the caveat, but it's not quite as jarring to the
flow as it was before.
Noel
_______________________________________________
lisp mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
