[cltl3-devel] Fwd: RFC: CLtL3 Charter

[Drew Crampsie]

did it again .. somebody smack me upside the head!


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Drew Crampsie <drew.crampsie at gmail.com>
Date: 2009/9/1
Subject: Re: [cltl3-devel] RFC: CLtL3 Charter
To: Gustavo <gugamilare at gmail.com>


2009/9/1 Gustavo <gugamilare at gmail.com>:
>
>
> 2009/9/1 <drew.crampsie at gmail.com>
>>
>> I'd personally much prefer a 'lispy' (read : verbose and understandable)
>> implementation of regexps then the one from perl, and still wouldn't want it
>> included as part of CLtL3..
>
> cl-ppcre allow the use of sexps as regexps. I think that they are "verbose"
> and "understandable".

So it might ... but as per section 4 "Preference will be given to
topics that cannot be implemented portably and have multiple existing
implementations.".

There will be a library folks, and that is what you as a coder will
likely use. CLtL3 is not for coders, but for implementors and library
authors (who, yes, are also coders but you get the idea). It's for
things we can't currently do in portable common lisp, not for things
that have been done and already see wide use. There is nothing holding
back the acceptance of cl-ppcre as the 'standard'  portable
implementation of perl compatible regular expressions, so why waste
time documenting and discussing it?

It will take an incredible amount of effort to describe in any detail
the interface of cl-ppcre, and for little to no gain. When a new perl
comes out, do we go ahead and change the standard? do we freeze
cl-ppcre at the time we publish CLtL3?

I understand that what a lot of people want is a 'standard library',
and not an updated description. I'd like that too. But we have to get
there somehow, and as it stands we cannot build our 'standard library'
on Standard Common Lisp. That is what CLtL3 is trying to fix.

Cheers,

drewc

>