Subject: Re: getting a full symbol name
From: Erik Naggum <>
Date: 2000/05/01
Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp
Message-ID: <>

* Barry Margolin <>
| In article <>, Erik Naggum  <> wrote:
| >  I'm slightly amused by Barry's willingness to regard the standard
| >  as silly and to-be-ignored when his own interests are at stake.
| I *never* said that the standard was to be ignored.  I dare you to
| prove that.

  Prove what?  Did I say you _said_ the standard was to be ignored?
  No.  Did you say it was very understandable that an implementation
  get keyword printing wrong, and that that no sensible person would
  rely on conformance?  Yes.  If that doesn't _communicate_ "ignore
  the silly standard", nothing does.

  I think conformance to an agreed-upon standard is fundamental to the
  trust we want in a language.  If we don't agree with it, which some
  of us won't for a number of reasons, both good and bad, the process
  is to change the document into something we _can_ agree with, not to
  reduce or undermine the trust in the standard.