Re: lisp revised standard



On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 19:35:11 -0700, Ron Garret wrote:

In article <pan.2007.03.29.00.52.29.357181@xxxxxxxxx>,
Brian Adkins <lojicdotcomNOSPAM@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 09:44:03 -0700, Ron Garret wrote:

In article <pan.2007.03.28.07.04.49.354435@xxxxxxxxx>,
Brian Adkins <lojicdotcomNOSPAM@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 23:25:10 -0700, Ron Garret wrote:

In article <%QiOh.795$5i7.449@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Brian Adkins <lojicdotcomNOSPAM@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Ron Garret wrote:
In article <56luc4F29ml3uU1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Pascal Costanza <pc@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
So here is a concrete question: What are you missing?

http://www.python.org/doc/current/modindex.html

Just out of curiosity. Are there a handful of modules from that list
that 1) you're particularly interested in, and 2) aren't provided by CL
?

That you would ask such a question indicates that you've missed the
point. I'm not talking about the modules, I'm talking about the *page*.

Yes, I certainly did miss your point. My bad - see when Pascal asked for
a concrete example of what was missing from Lisp to indicate it needed to
evolve, and you responded by posting a URL to a collection of Python
modules, I must have simply assumed you were referring to the
*content* of the page ;)

I *was* referring to the content of the page. The content of the page
is not modules. (The modules themselves are all built in to Python so
there is no need to visit a web page to obtain the modules if one is
using Python.)

The content of the page is POINTERS to DOCUMENTATION of the Python
STANDARD LIBRARY (with the "*standard* library" part being far and away
the most important of those three points for the purposes of this
discussion).

I thought CL stood for Common Lisp, not circumlocution...

Just spit it out Ron.

Ptooey! ;-)

I asked, in effect, what aspects of the Python
standard library you felt were important and/or indicative of a lack in
CL, and you reply that it's not the modules but the *page*. So your grand
point in response to what CL needs to evolve is a better web page full of
pointers to library documentation. Sheesh...

Almost. It needs a web page full of pointers to documentation of the
STANDARD library. And, of course, before that can be done there has to
first exist a standard library to document.

Ah, the circumlocution comes full circle, so to speak. I guess we're back
to my original question regarding what functionality you feel is important
to include in a "standard" library that doesn't exist. Feel free to
re-read it; it's right above the part where you stated I was missing
the point. Care to take a stab at it now, or would you prefer to continue
spinning?

I'll tell you what; I'll start.

(setf cl-standard-library (cons "cl-ppcre" nil))
(push "clsql" cl-standard-library)

Poof - a standard library. Once it's complete, we can whip up a nifty web
page with pointers to documentation and stuff.


rg

.