Ya gotta love a language and its denizens where the spec is so complete it either covers feature abuse (see "moving fill pointer during loop-across") or documents that such abuse is undefined and then said denizens sit around in pubs ignoring the redhead sitting under the moosehead bemoaning its inadequacy (the spec, not the moosehead) when it is hard to find a langue du jour that even has a spec.
If they had not screwed up and called prog0 prog1 I would consider using the damn thing.
-hp
ps. Are we going to leave Steve off the hook for misreading the spec he wrote?
On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 3:32 PM, Faré fahree@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 3:52 AM, Antoniotti Marco antoniotti.marco@disco.unimib.it wrote:
On Jan 29, 2014, at 02:03 , Steve Haflich shaflich@gmail.com wrote:
(We of X3J13 understood that the loop specification was not our best
work.)
Shall I utter the P-word? 3:) 3:) 3:) (Or the C-word, and I am sure you
agree on this one! :) )
I'll take the bait. PATHNAME sounds to me like the obvious horror starting with P — and I recommend Lispers to give a look at UIOP/PATHNAME to see why.
C, I'm not sure. Looking at the symbol index and glossary, I'll venture a guess: COMPILER-MACRO?
—♯ƒ • François-René ÐVB Rideau •Reflection&Cybernethics• http://fare.tunes.org For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong. — H. L. Mencken