[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Issue: PATHNAME-WILD (Version 1)
- To: Kent M Pitman <KMP@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
- Subject: Issue: PATHNAME-WILD (Version 1)
- From: David A. Moon <Moon@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
- Date: Thu, 8 Sep 88 15:52 EDT
- Cc: CL-Cleanup@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
- In-reply-to: <880908144147.2.KMP@GRYPHON.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
Date: Thu, 8 Sep 88 14:41 EDT
From: Kent M Pitman <KMP@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
Date: Wed, 7 Sep 88 22:17 EDT
From: David A. Moon <Moon@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
I am in favor of PATHNAME-WILD:NEW-FUNCTION with one change.
The function name should be PATHNAME-WILD-P rather than WILD-PATHNAME-P;
I think that's more consistent with the rest of Common Lisp.
I chose modifier-noun-P because of INPUT-STREAM-P, OUTPUT-STREAM-P....
Am I missing something or doesn't this making a compelling case
that WILD-PATHNAME-P is a better name?
To me PATHNAME-WILD-P is analogous to PATHNAME-DIRECTORY. It sounds
like you are thinking of "wild pathname" as a data type whereas I am
thinking of "wildness" as a conceptual slot of a pathname. CL is
sufficiently inconsistent that we can both find justification. Neither
case is compelling and I don't have a strong opinion, although I still
lean to my original position.