Kent M Pitman <email@example.com> wrote:
| The standard itself is not perfect. It is FULL of errors. Typos.
| Technical glitches.
As I've recently discovered... ;-} I've been slowly working my way
through the CLHS from one end to the other (a little bit at a time),
and I've run across several "howlers".
| We went with it. Not because we had no pride but because we knew
| that a flawed standard people could use was better than a perfect
| standard that was never coming. This is a commercial trade-off,
| not a statement of our having no pride.
Understood. But having bumped into a number of the typos [and after
having finally stopped patting myself on the back for having learned
enough CL that I could be confident that they *were* typos!], I began
to wonder if it would be at all useful to maintain a public-access
collection of CLHS "errata" somewhere (CLiki, maybe?), perhaps for
convenience structured to parallel the CLHS hierarchy, so that when
people (newbies especially) have a question about whether something
in the CLHS is a typo or not they could at least get a quick "second
That is, I'm not suggesting that such an errata list needs to be at
all "perfect" to be useful. Realistically, errata lists will always
have bugs in them, too. But I think it would have been useful to me
to have had a parallel errata tree available as I was reading.
So on the grounds that sometimes what is useful to the one may be useful
to the many... Comments?
Rob Warnock, PP-ASEL-IA <firstname.lastname@example.org>
627 26th Avenue <URL:http://rpw3.org/>
San Mateo, CA 94403 (650)572-2607