Re: CLtL2 copyright question
- From: Robert Uhl <eadmund42@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 06 May 2008 09:08:37 -0600
Tim Bradshaw <tfb+google@xxxxxxxx> writes:
Common Lisp needs a publicly-modifiable specification for many
reasons, of which here are a few examples.
No, it doesn't. What it needs is for people to experiment with and
later standardise on new features. Those standards, when they are
agreed, can simply refer back to the original standard and describe
what they are modifying.
Yes, and without a standards committee (which there shall never be) or a
BDFL (which there can never be), later standardisation will never
happen. De facto standardisation will never really happen either--IIRC
there are still implementations lacking Gray Streams, no?
Robert Uhl <http://public.xdi.org/=ruhl>
If infinite rednecks fired infinite shotguns at an infinite number of road
signs, they'd eventually create all the great literary works of the world in
braille. --Discordian Quote File
- Prev by Date: Re: You want abbreviations? You can't handle abbreviations!
- Next by Date: Re: A question (confusion) about closure
- Previous by thread: Re: CLtL2 copyright question
- Next by thread: cl weblock working for people