Here's Edi's reply. Sounds to me like a backdown due to time issues. I still think the io.lisp stuff would make more sense in cl-fad than in alexandria. Perhaps there's anyone who wants to take over the maintainship of cl-fad?
(Richard Kreuter would be my candidate of choice. Richard, are you on the list?)
-T.
Edi's reply:
On Sat, 22 Nov 2008 15:58:53 +0100, "Tobias C. Rittweiler" wrote:
I'd like to hear Edi's opinion about the stuff in io.lisp[*], and whether he considers it appropriate for CL-Fad's "thin library" scope.
Generally, I'd like to keep CL-FAD as small as possible as it was from the beginning intended to be some kind of least common denominator lib. (In fact, it came to life as a more or less literal copy of Peter's code from his book.) Adding more stuff potentially adds more headache as it has to work the same on all supported platforms. Not to mention that I currently don't have much time to maintain my libraries anyway.
So, my vote would be to keep things as they are. Symbol conflicts are things we have to live with anyway.
Cheers, Edi.