Re: [Sbcl-devel] manpage patch

[William H. N. <wil...@ai...>]

On Tue, Oct 07, 2003 at 01:05:27PM +0100, Daniel Barlow wrote:
> For some reason I generally feel much less confident about hacking
> whn's prose than his code, so I offer this diff to the mailing list
> for review before committing it.  Notable changes

Well, yeah, 'cause prose doesn't have automatic regression tests.:-) 
 
I looked at the diff and noticed two minor things...

+(Why doesn't SBCL support more extensions natively?  Why drop all
+those nice extensions from CMU CL when the code already exists? This
+is a frequently asked question on the mailing list.  There are two   
                                                                ^^^
+principle reasons.  First, it's a design philosophy issue: arguably
 ^^^^^^^^^

I think it'd be "principal"; but then since to me "principal" tends to
connote a single thing, "two principal ..." sounds a little funny,
too. Maybe "two main reasons"?

+SBCL has done its job by supplying a stable FFI, and the right design
+decision is to move functionality derived from that, like socket
+support, into separate libraries.  Some of these are distributed with
+SBCL as "contrib" modules, others are distributed as separate software
+packages by separate maintainers. Second, it's a practical decision -
+focusing on a smaller number of things will, we hope, let us do a
+better job on them )
                   ^
missing punctuation (exclamation point maybe:-)

-- 
William Harold Newman <wil...@ai...>
If I thought anyone cared, if I thought anyone would even be reading
this, I'd probably make an effort to keep up appearances until the
last possible moment. But no one does, and no one will. So I can
pretty much say exactly what I think.
  -- Olin Shivers, <http://www.scsh.net/docu/html/man.html>
PGP key fingerprint 85 CE 1C BA 79 8D 51 8C  B9 25 FB EE E0 C3 E5 7C