loop conformance

[Kenneth Tilton]

Ya gotta love a language and its denizens where the spec is so complete it
either covers feature abuse (see "moving fill pointer during loop-across")
or documents that such abuse is undefined and then said denizens sit around
in pubs ignoring the redhead sitting under the moosehead bemoaning its
inadequacy (the spec, not the moosehead) when it is hard to find a langue
du jour that even has a spec.

If they had not screwed up and called prog0 prog1 I would consider using
the damn thing.

-hp

ps. Are we going to leave Steve off the hook for misreading the spec he
wrote?


On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 3:32 PM, Faré <fahree at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 3:52 AM, Antoniotti Marco
> <antoniotti.marco at disco.unimib.it> wrote:
> >
> > On Jan 29, 2014, at 02:03 , Steve Haflich <shaflich at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>  (We of X3J13 understood that the loop specification was not our best
> work.)
> >>
> >
> > Shall I utter the P-word? 3:) 3:) 3:)  (Or the C-word, and I am sure you
> agree on this one!  :) )
> >
> I'll take the bait.
> PATHNAME sounds to me like the obvious horror starting with P — and I
> recommend Lispers to give a look at UIOP/PATHNAME to see why.
>
> C, I'm not sure. Looking at the symbol index and glossary, I'll
> venture a guess: COMPILER-MACRO?
>
> —♯ƒ • François-René ÐVB Rideau •Reflection&Cybernethics•
> http://fare.tunes.org
> For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and
> wrong.
>                 — H. L. Mencken
>
>


-- 
Kenneth Tilton
Fort Lauderdale, FL
http://tiltontec.com
http://socialalgebra.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.common-lisp.net/pipermail/pro/attachments/20140129/684f7552/attachment.html>