[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Issue: PATHNAME-COMPONENT-VALUE (version 2)
- To: masinter.pa@Xerox.COM
- Subject: Re: Issue: PATHNAME-COMPONENT-VALUE (version 2)
- From: David A. Moon <Moon@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
- Date: Thu, 25 May 89 12:05 EDT
- Cc: CL-Cleanup@sail.stanford.edu
- In-reply-to: <890524-233803-10977@Xerox>
- Line-fold: No
Date: 24 May 89 23:37 PDT
I wish "other implementations were not surveyed" were not true.
Will "other implementations" speak up?
I do not have convenient access to most Common Lisp implementations, so
I was hoping to rely on the other members of the Cleanup committee, who
together cover a pretty broad range of systems, to supply current
practice information before the issue is forwarded to X3J13 as a whole.
This applies to all of the pathname issues. Please help, y'all.