On 1-Sep-09, at 6:40 PM, Drew Crampsie wrote:
did it again .. somebody smack me upside the head!
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Drew Crampsie <drew.crampsie@gmail.com> Date: 2009/9/1 Subject: Re: [cltl3-devel] RFC: CLtL3 Charter To: Gustavo <gugamilare@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.".
Well, as far as these kinds of lisp<->os interactions go, splitting things up into packages or modules has worked out pretty well for python and (I think) ruby. It seems natural not to clutter the cl-user namespace with a lot of symbols that aren't needed universally, and it is just as easy to (require 'cl-net) || (require 'cl-os) || (require 'cl-sys), for networking, system interfaces, and path operations respectively, especially if their presence in a 'standard' library was pretty much guaranteed. There's also the fact that making updates to these subsystems within the context of a library is much easier than updating the core system, particularly if cltl3 ends up with a large deployment base of legacy applications. Kind Regards., Brian O'Reilly