Account Options

  1. Sign in
The old Google Groups will be going away soon, but your browser is incompatible with the new version.
Google Groups Home
« Groups Home
Message from discussion What I want from my Common Lisp vendor and the Common Lisp community
The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. Messages posted to this group will make your email address visible to anyone on the Internet.
Your reply message has not been sent.
Your post was successful
 
From:
To:
Cc:
Followup To:
Add Cc | Add Followup-to | Edit Subject
Subject:
Validation:
For verification purposes please type the characters you see in the picture below or the numbers you hear by clicking the accessibility icon. Listen and type the numbers you hear
 
Erik Naggum  
View profile  
 More options Aug 31 2001, 6:32 pm
Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp
From: Erik Naggum <e...@naggum.net>
Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 22:32:23 GMT
Local: Fri, Aug 31 2001 6:32 pm
Subject: Re: What I want from my Common Lisp vendor and the Common Lisp community
* Sam Steingold <s...@gnu.org>

> this (unfortunate and now removed) comment is _very_ old
> (from long before my days).

  Thank you.

> the only place where ANSI CL standard is (IMHO) deficient is readable
> pathname printing: #p"" is ambiguous (#p".foo" can be #s(pathname :type
> "foo") and #s(pathname :name ".foo")).

  The implementation has to make some design choices when it comes to
  mapping pathname namestrings to and from the underlying operating system
  and its inevitable differences from the pathname concept.  For instance,
  Unix makes no distinction between "/tmp/foo/" and "/tmp/foo", but these
  mean different things entirely in pathnames if the former has :directory
  (:absolute "tmp" "foo") and the latter has :name "foo".  Likewise, since
  "dot files" are possible in Unix and get somewhat strained when
  shoehorned into the pathname concept, you have to make a design choice
  and stick by it.  When things are ambiguous, the only thing you need to
  do is document your choice, but if you are really nice, you can make it a
  user-configurable option.

> the #s(pathname ...) (and #s(logical-pathname)!) notation, while used in
> a couple of CLHS pages, has not been standardised.  any chance it ever
> will be?

  Not unless we define a particular Unix bindings or pathname concepts.

///


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.