[Gardeners] Mangling the hyperspec

[Peter Seibel]

On Jan 1, 2006, at 5:15 PM, Matthew D Swank wrote:

> Peter Herth wrote:
>
>> The hyperspec has its place as the pure technical reference. Of
>> course, with a complex language like Common Lisp, this makes for a
>> complex documentation.
>
> This may seem strange, but the text of Common Lisp the Language, 2nd
> edition is quite readable (and searchable in pdf form).  Of course  
> it's
> a little out of date.  I know they share a lot of language, but is it
> any less encumbered than the Hyperspec?

Only in the sense that the copyright is probably clearly owned,  
either by Guy Steele or Digital Press. If anyone has some clever idea  
involving creating a derived work based on CLTL1 or CLTL2, they could  
presumably approach those folks and make a proposal. (Personally I  
think it'd be sort of cool to make a CLTL3 that brought CLTL up to  
date vis a vis the ANSI standard. Of course if you wanted to then  
include chunks of the ANSI standard one would be right back to the  
topic of can you get ANSI to give you permission to use the official  
text or can you determine who owns the copyright on the dpANS  
documents.)

-Peter

-- 
Peter Seibel           * peter at gigamonkeys.com
Gigamonkeys Consulting * http://www.gigamonkeys.com/
Practical Common Lisp  * http://www.gigamonkeys.com/book/