[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Issue: PATHNAME-EXTENSIONS (Version 1)
- To: Kent M Pitman <KMP@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
- Subject: Issue: PATHNAME-EXTENSIONS (Version 1)
- From: David A. Moon <Moon@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
- Date: Thu, 29 Dec 88 13:04 EST
- Cc: CL-Cleanup@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
- In-reply-to: <881228155709.6.KMP@BOBOLINK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
This sounds reasonable at first, but I was unable to think of any
way that a correct portable program could use it. If there was a
use for it, I couldn't convince myself that a single yes/no distinction
was sufficient; some extensions to Common Lisp pathname semantics
might be handled by a CL function that the user program was going to
call, thus they wouldn't interfere with use of an "extended" pathname.
Indeed, why isn't this true of all such extensions?
I think you need to supply a real example.