From ... From: Erik Naggum Subject: Re: (no subject) Date: 1999/03/13 Message-ID: <3130316880893726@naggum.no>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 454521144 References: <36E74ACB.7594C314@earthlink.net> <3130179335770282@naggum.no> <87oglzmft1.fsf@2xtreme.net> <3130271957311515@naggum.no> mail-copies-to: never Organization: Naggum Software; +47 8800 8879; http://www.naggum.no Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp * Kent M Pitman | Would I have learned math better if someone had started with a full | theory of complexes, or with the right terms but just lots of missing | elements conspicuously waiting for years to be filled in? Kent, I think you're overreacting. my issue is only with having a one-shot high-level overview of something finite and fully knowable that is _contradicted_ by fact, not about how successive approximations to a complete understanding of something would work, especially not as used in a situation where the teacher can control the real or apparent confusions when moving from one approximation to the next. I'm concerned that you appear to think that explaining a simple principle in the design of Common Lisp (no statement/expression dichotomy) cannot be done simply _and_ correctly, however. yet I'm not sure that's really what you wanted to say. when I study something, I want to know what motivated those who figured it out, not only whatever somebody thinks would motivate me to use it. if I understand the former, I can perhaps find a better way, combining what I know from other motivations, and do something fun and cool. if I only learn the latter, the best I can hope for is using existing tools, and how fun is that? #:Erik