From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Don Geddis 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 12:05:23 -0700 Organization: http://don.geddis.org/ Message-ID: <87d4vpv34c.fsf@geddis.org> 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=us-ascii X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1191885216 25775 80.91.229.12 (8 Oct 2007 23:13:36 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2007 23:13:36 +0000 (UTC) To: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Original-X-From: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Oct 09 01:13:33 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 1If1n2-0001Pu-Kb for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Tue, 09 Oct 2007 01:13:32 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1If1mx-0004fn-Da for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Mon, 08 Oct 2007 19:13:27 -0400 Original-Path: shelby.stanford.edu!news.geddis.org!news Original-Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp,gnu.emacs.help,comp.lang.scheme Original-Lines: 23 Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: c-71-202-147-17.hsd1.ca.comcast.net Original-X-Trace: news.Stanford.EDU 1191870488 28422 71.202.147.17 (8 Oct 2007 19:08:08 GMT) Original-X-Complaints-To: news@news.stanford.edu User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) XEmacs/21.4.20 (linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:kpID3o5ZZVNdiVhTssTBjS8xFBk= Original-Xref: shelby.stanford.edu comp.lang.lisp:230681 gnu.emacs.help:152717 comp.lang.scheme:74350 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 08 Oct 2007 19:13:07 -0400 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:48231 Archived-At: William D Clinger wrote on Sun, 07 Oct 2007: > 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. Sure, that makes sense. > That's the real lesson of the Gabriel/Pitman paper cited earlier in this > thread. 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. I've read the paper many times, and I'm unable to identify what you're referring to. Perhaps I don't have an open mind. In any case, what argument "against" Lisp-2 is incorrectly counted as an argument "in favor" of Lisp-2? -- Don _______________________________________________________________________________ Don Geddis http://don.geddis.org/ don@geddis.org If a kid asks where rain comes from, I think a cute thing to tell him is "God is crying." And if he asks why God is crying, another cute thing to tell him is "Probably because of something you did." -- Deep Thoughts, by Jack Handey