Search
Sunday, 21st of May 2017, 12:04:40 UTC
12:09:09
edgar-rft
it was only an idea in my dumb little head :-)
12:09:27
_death
nothing prevents you from implementing whatever you want right now
12:10:17
shrdlu68
They'll declare fatwa on you.
12:12:48
edgar-rft
_death: but then I'm not a conforming implementation anymore
12:14:07
edgar-rft
_death: you mean I already was a non-conforming implementation before?
12:14:34
_death
I mean the spec will remain as it is after humanity is long gone
12:15:39
edgar-rft
I agree, the spec is inhuman :-)
13:40:16
_death
there, at the edge of the world, as chaos disperses bits throughout, lay the petrified common lisp hyperspec, ready to pronounce your implementation nonconforming
13:41:01
grublet
but it has a lisp, so it can't pronounce things very well
13:58:07
krator44
too bad that the spec is proprietary..
13:58:23
krator44
that's actually a huge disadvantage of the language
14:01:30
krator44
in some.. attempt to stay relevant they keep the copyright on that
14:02:21
krator44
it doesn't make any sense
14:09:21
krator44
relinquish the hyperspec
14:11:04
grublet
hyperspec is such a futuristic sounding word
14:11:21
grublet
like it's made of chrome and has lightning bolts painted on it
14:24:27
jackdaniel
krator44: here, this one is not proprietary: http://cvberry.com/tech_writings/notes/common_lisp_standard_draft.html
14:24:43
jackdaniel
fwiw clhs is build from the same draft
14:36:54
|3b|
yeah, only the html of the hyperspec is proprietary
14:37:07
krator44
jackdaniel: oh hey thanks
14:37:11
krator44
thats not even that bad
14:37:57
jackdaniel
tex sources are public domain
14:40:30
|3b|
also there is http://phoe.tymoon.eu/clus/doku.php which is trying to make a new/nice/etc replacement for CLHS
14:41:13
|3b|
(and place for lisp documentation in general, not just the spec)
15:05:50
krator44
i thought the hyperspec was the main specification
15:09:06
beach
krator44: We treat it that way, because the main specification seems to exist only as a scanned PDF document from ANSI.
15:09:34
krator44
it's not a scanned document
15:10:23
beach
krator44: What evidence to the contrary do you have?
15:10:25
krator44
it looks like actually a compiled tex file
15:10:33
krator44
you think it's scanned?
15:10:37
beach
krator44: Did you buy it from ANSI?
15:10:40
krator44
just check out the link
15:11:02
beach
krator44: ANSI is a for-profit organization that owns the standard. There is no link to it.
15:11:50
krator44
well what about this one http://cvberry.com/tech_writings/notes/common_lisp_standard_draft.html
15:12:06
jackdaniel
krator44: that's not ansi standard what I have linked
15:12:14
jackdaniel
it is build from the same specification draft as clhs is
15:12:33
jackdaniel
clhs isn't ansi standard either
15:12:50
beach
krator44: So, again, did you buy the standard from ANSI to determine that it is not a scanned document?
15:13:11
krator44
no i hadn't but i'm ok with the draft
15:13:20
jackdaniel
ANSI sells silly specification scan which is unusable
15:13:48
jackdaniel
that's not even close to being worth its price
15:18:54
jackdaniel
krator44: this is a fascinating read: http://www.nhplace.com/kent/Papers/cl-untold-story.html
15:19:28
jackdaniel
which outlines history of the common lisp specification
15:30:11
fiddlerwoaroof
Section 3.2 of that essay is one of my favorite non-technical aspects of Common Lisp
15:30:44
fiddlerwoaroof
I'm pretty tired of dealing with languages and standard libraries that change out from under you.
15:32:02
jackdaniel
yes, I find it pretty amusing that CL programs from '94 work flawlessly on today implementations
16:02:14
edgar-rft
jackdaniel: it's probably more like CL programs from '94 work with *exactly the same bugs as they had then* on today implementations
Monday, 22nd of May 2017, 0:04:40 UTC