[cltl3-devel] CDR?

[Stelian Ionescu]

On Mon, 2009-05-18 at 16:44 +0200, Marco Antoniotti wrote:
> Hi
> 
> I went through the old mail and stuff and found the old CLRFI things.   
> Of that, I would salvage a few things, although a lot of it would fit  
> in the "too big" category.
> 
> But before going on, I'd like to raise the issue: why not the CDR as is?
> Maybe spruce it up with a nice wiki and whatnot, but why something  
> different?

Because that's not enough: I want to have a single repository containing
a reference implementation of all issues discussed, with a test suite
and documentation. The repository would create a single package
named :CLTL3(for starters) which re-exports CL symbols - eventual
shadowing + all new symbols.
Given a large task such as coming up with a new API for streams,
pathnames and OS interface, having an implementation to play with is
necessary: the API would be too large to just think about it and would
require hands-on testing in order to be fully understood.
The repository should also use ASDF(for the moment at least) so that
I(and other brave people) can use it in personal projects and use :CLTL3
instead of :CL

Also, I don't like the idea of having a period of only 6 weeks(or even
months) during which a proposal can be modified: it's not enough.
Consider for how long was CLTL2 discussed and how implementors still run
into under- and un-specified behaviour(see a sample at
http://www.cliki.net/Proposed%20ANSI%20Revisions%20and%20Clarifications)

-- 
Stelian Ionescu a.k.a. fe[nl]ix
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <https://mailman.common-lisp.net/pipermail/cltl3-devel/attachments/20090519/dfe87ef1/attachment.sig>