[cltl3-devel] Fwd: RFC: CLtL3 Charter

[Brian O'Reilly]

On 1-Sep-09, at 6:40 PM, Drew Crampsie wrote:

> 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.".

Well, as far as these kinds of lisp<->os interactions go, splitting  
things up into packages or modules has worked out pretty well for  
python and (I think) ruby. It seems natural not to clutter the cl-user  
namespace with a lot of symbols that aren't needed universally, and it  
is just as easy to (require 'cl-net) || (require 'cl-os) || (require  
'cl-sys), for networking, system interfaces, and path operations  
respectively, especially if their presence in a 'standard' library was  
pretty much guaranteed. There's also the fact that making updates to  
these subsystems within the context of a library is much easier than  
updating the core system, particularly if cltl3 ends up with a large  
deployment base of legacy applications.


Kind Regards.,

Brian O'Reilly