Peter Seibel <email@example.com> wrote:
| Edi Weitz <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
| > Oh, and one more thing: I didn't include regular expressions in the
| > list above because CL-PPCRE and some other regex libraries out there
| > (look, e.g., at Michael Parker's "clawk" which predates CL-PPCRE)
| > show that you can write acceptable code in a completely portable
| > way. I wonder if it makes sense to standardize something like this.
| > I'd be /much/ more interested in talking about what you can't do
| > with ANSI CL alone.
| We may still be using "standardize" in different ways. To me CL-PPCRE
| is the "standard" regexp library exactly when it is the clear answer
| to the question "How do I do regexps in Common Lisp?" I recognize that
| this is quite different than a written standard that has been produced
| by a particular formal process and which was designed to be multiply
| implemented. Exactly because it doesn't need anything more than what's
| already provided by Common Lisp, there don't *have* to be multiple
| implementations. Just one that we agree to use. I have been trying to
| use "de facto standard" to make this keep this distinction clear but
| maybe that wasn't enough.
It may be that "standard" has become too associated with heavy-weight
process". What if we just called such things the "community concensus
on best current practice(s)"? We could have a "Best%20Current%20Practice"
CLiki page, and what's on it could change with over time with experience.
It could also list topics for which there was no clear single concensus,
but for which there were several respected contenders.
Rob Warnock <email@example.com>
627 26th Avenue <URL:http://rpw3.org/>
San Mateo, CA 94403 (650)572-2607