From ...
From: Erik Naggum <erik@naggum.no>
Subject: Re: getting a full symbol name
Date: 2000/05/01
Message-ID: <3166188479098304@naggum.no>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 617906511
References: <5174E9F018ADFCCC.F6B53EE0A06D6DC9.5CE6E22D206AE3C2@lp.airnews.net> <8eff72$cjo$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <390BB664.52D48065@fisec.com> <3166113278259275@naggum.no> <LphP4.36$_B6.393@burlma1-snr2>
mail-copies-to: never
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Complaints-To: newsmaster@eunet.no
X-Trace: oslo-nntp.eunet.no 957200457 7839 195.0.192.66 (1 May 2000 17:00:57 GMT)
Organization: Naggum Software; vox: +47 8800 8879; fax: +47 8800 8601; http://www.naggum.no
User-Agent: Gnus/5.0803 (Gnus v5.8.3) Emacs/20.5
Mime-Version: 1.0
NNTP-Posting-Date: 1 May 2000 17:00:57 GMT
Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp

* Barry Margolin <barmar@genuity.net>
| In article <3166113278259275@naggum.no>, Erik Naggum  <erik@naggum.no> 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.

#:Erik