[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Agenda for September meeting
- To: "Sonya E. Keene" <skeene@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
- Subject: Re: Agenda for September meeting
- From: kempf%hplabsz@hplabs.HP.COM
- Date: Mon, 31 Aug 87 09:01:00 MST
- Cc: common-lisp-object-system@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
- In-reply-to: Your message of Fri, 21 Aug 87 10:17:00 -0400. <870821101706.9.SKEENE@JUNCO.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
> Date: Thu, 20 Aug 87 14:23:16 MST
> From: kempf%hplabsz@hplabs.HP.COM
> With regard to the spec documentation> , I'd like to put in a vote for an ASCII
> version to go on parcvax, along with the portable source, so people don't
> have to be working in the dark with it. The ASCII version doesn't
> necessarily have to be up to the current level of discussion and
> decision within the committee (indeed, it probably shouldn't) but should
> reflect approximately what is implemented.
> Please don't confuse the spec documentation with documentation for an
> implementation. These are two very different things!
I hope I'm not. My concern is that, if the process of finalizing the spec
and the portable implementation continue in tandem, as seems to be happening,
people will want to have a more accessable copy of the spec. Of course,
there will be differences between the spec and the implementation, and
these should probably be documented. Additionally, should a decision be made
not to pursue the portable implementation (which would be tragic, in my
opinion) then there would be little need. There are lots of people using the
current PCL/half CLOS at universities and such, and I think they'd like to
have a copy.
But I most whole-heartedly agree that the spec and any particular
implementation of it are seperate.