Re: Naive DEFSYSTEM replacement
"Tim Bradshaw (as tfb at tfeb dot org)" <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.lisp.lispworks.general |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On 28 Jul 2025, at 15:25, Robert Goldman (as rpgoldman at sift dot net) <[email protected]> wrote: > > I don't mean to disparage Peter, but CL-FAD is much less ambitious, and really is not fit for purpose. Someone should make a list like one of the famous 'falsehoods programmers believe about time' ones: 'falsehoods programmers believe about pathnames'. It would be a long list. Some other lists: - 'the ways CL implementations differ in their treatment of pathnames while still being conforming' - 'bugs in CL implementations around pathname handling' - 'nonstandard extensions of pathnames by CL implementations which are really annoying' - 'appropriate obscenities to use when dealing with the above three lists in your programs' (this list is 'all of them') - 'all the reasons pathnames are a misbegotten horror which should be consigned to history' - 'proposals for replacing pathnames by something which, honestly, will be less misbegotten and completely portable. Yes, really, it will' --tim _______________________________________________ Lisp Hug - the mailing list for LispWorks users [email protected] http://www.lispworks.com/support/lisp-hug.html