[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
It seems that CLtL uses ``entity'' only in the discussion of dynamic
scope. This is a reasonable use. I think, though, that as long as it
is used only in that one place, it should not appear in the glossary
(but I'll have to check on this more). Is there any other place CLtS
(Common Lisp the Specification) that uses the term ``binding'' to
refer to anything but variable and function bindings? Kathy, perhaps you
can search the likely sections for such wording?
I both agree and disagree with that. On the one hand, we shouldn't be forced
by the glossary into saying something different from what we want to say. On
the other hand, once we have agreed on the glossary it seems senseless not to
use it as the source of answers to our questions about what terminology to
choose. If we base our terminology on an agreed-upon glossary, the document
seems likely to be less inconsistent. If we still haven't agreed on the
glossary I don't see how we are going to finish in time.
Hm, I meant to say that the glossary should reflect as best it can a
set of precise definitions of existing terminology with only a minimal
amount of terminology invention. On glancing at the glossary so far, I
see nothing major that's wrong with it (but I'm often mistaken).
I don't believe we can get the spec in good shape by June 26, but our
real deadline is the last week of July, when we need to send it to
ISO. I am now spending all my work time on the specification.