[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Issue: PATHNAME-UNSPECIFIC-COMPONENT (Version 1)

To: Kent M Pitman <KMP@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
Subject: Issue: PATHNAME-UNSPECIFIC-COMPONENT (Version 1)
From: David A. Moon <Moon@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
Date: Thu, 29 Dec 88 13:38 EST
Cc: CL-Cleanup@SAIL.Stanford.EDU
Comments: Added comment about misspelled proposal name
In-reply-to: <881227112629.4.KMP@BOBOLINK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
Supersedes: <19881229183701.1.MOON@EUPHRATES.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>

I approve PATHNAME-TYPE-UNSPECIFIC:NEW-TOKEN (of course).
Uh, the proposal name is really spelled that way in the body
of the writeup.  It should be PATHNAME-UNSPECIFIC-COMPONENT:NEW-TOKEN.

Where you note that Unix pathnames don't have versions, you
could also note that they don't have devices either.

The stuff about generic pathnames in the discussion section
was brain damage and may have lead to the confusion that caused
:unspecific to be dropped from Common Lisp.  Only the stuff about
components not supported by a file system makes sense.

References:
- Issue: PATHNAME-UNSPECIFIC-COMPONENT (Version 1)
  - From: Kent M Pitman <KMP@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>

Prev by Date: Issue: PATHNAME-UNSPECIFIC-COMPONENT (Version 1)
Next by Date: Issue: PATHNAME-EXTENSIONS (Version 1)
Previous by thread: Issue: PATHNAME-UNSPECIFIC-COMPONENT (Version 1)
Next by thread: Re: Issue: PATHNAME-UNSPECIFIC-COMPONENT (Version 1)
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread