From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Pascal Costanza Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.help Subject: Re: Nested Lambda function gives error in common lisp, guile, emacs lisp but works in scheme. Why? Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2007 08:42:07 +0200 Message-ID: <5mu1pvFevrusU2@mid.individual.net> References: <1191735269.656673.146370@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com> <5mrsliFesppjU1@mid.individual.net> <1191799640.394781.254540@v3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> <1191812295.692215.113710@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1191829253 18132 80.91.229.12 (8 Oct 2007 07:40:53 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2007 07:40:53 +0000 (UTC) To: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Original-X-From: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Oct 08 09:40:49 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1IenEO-0007yb-Db for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Mon, 08 Oct 2007 09:40:48 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IenEJ-0003oY-6B for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Mon, 08 Oct 2007 03:40:43 -0400 Original-Path: shelby.stanford.edu!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news.tele.dk!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail Original-Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp,gnu.emacs.help,comp.lang.scheme Original-Lines: 28 Original-X-Trace: individual.net K4i8906yi00oeTDRqlgl7QIgMWibjsBL/PaeWca2tGlGwpyOWu Cancel-Lock: sha1:u9AEvNKyYvhnzOxCray88RsJqvg= User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Macintosh/20070728) In-Reply-To: <1191812295.692215.113710@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com> Original-Xref: shelby.stanford.edu comp.lang.lisp:230609 gnu.emacs.help:152700 comp.lang.scheme:74330 X-BeenThere: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Users list for the GNU Emacs text editor List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.help:48208 Archived-At: William D Clinger wrote: > If you can regard higher-order functions as > unnatural, then you can regard Common Lisp's > semantics as natural. That's the real lesson > of the Gabriel/Pitman paper cited earlier in > this thread. By the way, that paper was not > subject to normal peer review; it was political > from the start, and its conclusion that the > advantages and disadvantages of Lisp-1 and > Lisp-2 are comparable was pre-ordained. > > To reach that conclusion, they had to count > at least one of the arguments against Lisp-2 > as an argument in favor of Lisp-2. I won't > spoil your fun by explaining this; it's obvious > if you read the paper carefully with an open > mind. Whatever. Lisp-1 just sucks. ;-) Pascal -- My website: http://p-cos.net Common Lisp Document Repository: http://cdr.eurolisp.org Closer to MOP & ContextL: http://common-lisp.net/project/closer/