[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Dave.Touretzky@B.GP.CS.CMU.EDU: pluralization: two proposals]
- To: Moon@stony-brook.scrc.symbolics.com
- Subject: [Dave.Touretzky@B.GP.CS.CMU.EDU: pluralization: two proposals]
- From: Guy Steele <gls@Think.COM>
- Date: Tue, 7 Mar 89 13:21:27 EST
- Cc: email@example.com
- Cc: gls@Think.COM, Dave.Touretzky@b.gp.cs.cmu.edu, firstname.lastname@example.org
- In-reply-to: David A. Moon's message of Mon, 6 Mar 89 20:14 EST <19890307011451.1.MOON@EUPHRATES.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
Date: Mon, 6 Mar 89 20:14 EST
From: David A. Moon <Moon@stony-brook.scrc.symbolics.com>
I see no reason why this can't be handled by programming in Lisp
rather than adding new syntax to FORMAT.
Guy: I'm still pissed at you, even after more than ten years, for
adding programming language features to FORMAT after we had all
agreed not to do that. OK, I admit I'm still speaking to you, and
I admit that I use the features myself. But I still think they
Actually, on Tuesdays and Fridays I am pissed at myself for the same
reason. But I use them, too. More to the point, I still have not
seen an alternative that is more convenient. But I would be happy to
see a cleanup proposal to nuke lots of formatting widgies.
FORMAT and LOOP are both like Lay's Potato Chips: betcha can't eat just one!
To Dick Waters: actually, in the pretty-printer proposal, perhaps
FORMAT should not be the *only* interface to the pretty-printer?
Maybe there should be functions one can call as well?