2009/9/1 Drew Crampsie <drew.crampsie@gmail.com>
2009/9/1 Gustavo <gugamilare@gmail.com>:
>
>
> 2009/9/1 <drew.crampsie@gmail.com>
>>
>> I'd personally much prefer a 'lispy' (read : verbose and understandable)
>> implementation of regexps then the one from perl, and still wouldn't want it
>> included as part of CLtL3..
>
> cl-ppcre allow the use of sexps as regexps. I think that they are "verbose"
> and "understandable".

So it might ... but as per section 4 "Preference will be given to
topics that cannot be implemented portably and have multiple existing
implementations.".

I'm not saying that cl-ppcre should be made part of cltl3, I actually agree with you. That was just an off-topic comment (if someone doesn't know that already).