On 2013-12-29, Richard Fateman <fateman at berkeley.edu> wrote:
> I think a simpler fix is to change the documentation so that it
> corresponds to the common lisp standard.
That would be convenient, but incorrect, since fpprintprec is (we hope)
something about precision, but that doesn't correspond exactly to any
CL format construct, which has parameters for field width and number of
digits after the decimal point -- not the same thing in either case.
I'm also opposed to nuking fpprintprec and creating some new fpprintfoo
where foo corresponds better to CL notions.
best
Robert Dodier