Subject: Re: getting a full symbol name From: Erik Naggum <erik@naggum.no> Date: 2000/05/01 Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp Message-ID: <3166188479098304@naggum.no> * 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