Re: Common Lisp Document Repository
Pierre THIERRY wrote:
> Le Thu, 10 Aug 2006 13:55:04 +0200, Pascal Costanza a écrit :
> > The Common Lisp Document Repository intentionally does not define a
> > process for coming up with specifications or any other means to
> > guarantee some level of quality of the submitted documents.
> I'm pretty sure this is the strongest basis for an unsuccesful
> standardization process.
> You *have* to discuss and settle the submission process, even if it's a
> bit informal.
When skimming the site, I got the impression this was meant to serve as
part of a standardization process; mutually nonexclusive layers could
be built on top by others. From an engineering standpoint, this seems
like a sound attempt, whether or not it succeeds. All they're doing is
assigning unique numbers to documents, with some minimal intervention,
so these documents may be reliably referenced in communication.
(And as we see with Common Lisp, its "success" may be entirely
unpredictable and time-varying.)
But perhaps I got the wrong impression.
|Thread||Thread Starter||Forum||Replies||Last Post|
|Announcing Smilisp, a new dialect of Lisp||Didier Verna||Newsgroup comp.lang.lisp||12||04-03-2009 03:55 AM|
|Re: Read/Write Microsoft Word document||William W. Viergever||Newsgroup comp.soft-sys.sas||0||05-31-2006 08:46 PM|
|Re: Read/Write Microsoft Word document||Joe Whitehurst||Newsgroup comp.soft-sys.sas||0||05-31-2006 08:35 PM|
|Re: Read/Write Microsoft Word document||Pardee, Roy||Newsgroup comp.soft-sys.sas||0||05-31-2006 08:19 PM|
|SAS Management Console - setting up a production/development environment||Ankit||Newsgroup comp.soft-sys.sas||2||01-14-2006 03:06 PM|