[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Issue: PATHNAME-COMPONENT-CASE (Version 1)
- To: Scott.Fahlman@B.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
- Subject: Re: Issue: PATHNAME-COMPONENT-CASE (Version 1)
- From: David A. Moon <Moon@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
- Date: Thu, 21 Jul 88 11:23 EDT
- Cc: CL-Cleanup@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
- In-reply-to: The message of 21 Jul 88 01:06 EDT from Scott.Fahlman@B.GP.CS.CMU.EDU
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 88 01:06:44 EDT
....If we do it this way, we break no existing code....
You mean we break none of -your- existing code. The only way to break no
existing code is to retain the unsatisfactory status quo. Since CLtL is
not specific here, different implementations have resolved the ambiguity
in different ways, and if they are to be made all to work the same way,
some existing code will have to change.
If the above has an obnoxious tone, it's not intentional. I simply mean
to point out that what you said is not accurate.