[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Issue: WITH-OPEN-STRING-APPEND-STYLE (Version 2)
- To: masinter.pa@Xerox.COM, edsel!jonl@labrea.Stanford.EDU
- Subject: Re: Issue: WITH-OPEN-STRING-APPEND-STYLE (Version 2)
- From: David A. Moon <Moon@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
- Date: Mon, 23 May 88 18:35 EDT
- Cc: cl-cleanup@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
- In-reply-to: <880523-130454-5166@Xerox>
- Line-fold: No
Date: 23 May 88 13:04 PDT
From: masinter.pa@Xerox.COM
Two nits:
A more serious nit is that the issue is misnamed since there is
no Common Lisp facility named "with-open-string". The intended
name was probably "with-output-to-string-append-style".
Aesthetics:
This is a bit silly, but I'm wondering if you are reconstructing QUUX's quote
accurately. The quote I can find (from format-colon-uparrow-scope), is
``Absolutely none. We're talking about FORMAT here.'' -- Guy L. Steele Jr. In
any case, the proposal is to change WITH-OPEN-STRING, not FORMAT. I'd be happier
if it said that this was a minor improvement to the aesthetics of the language
because it made it more consistent.
I agree with your last sentence, also I think the Steele quotation was never
relevant to this issue.
Proposal format:
The preferred format is to use "Cost to Users" and "Cost to Implementors" rather
than "Adoption Cost" and "Implementation Cost" because people were confused by
them.
Agreed.