[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
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".
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.
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