[Sbcl-devel] Re: SBLC docstrings

[Nikodemus S. <nik...@ra...>]

"William Bland" <doc...@gm...> writes:

> In my current SBCL (0.9.11) there are a bunch of symbols in the :CL
> package that have no documentation:

> If I was to make patches to fill in the gaps, would this be useful to
> people other than myself and potentially get included in future
> releases?  Or are the omissions deliberate for some reason that I've
> overlooked?

I would be inclined to merge such patches.

Cheers,

  -- Nikodemus              Schemer: "Buddha is small, clean, and serious."
                   Lispnik: "Buddha is big, has hairy armpits, and laughs."