From ...
From: Erik Naggum <erik@naggum.no>
Subject: Re: (loop for ? in ? finally ?)
Date: 2000/02/25
Message-ID: <3160481213819408@naggum.no>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 589894230
References: <u900b92iw.fsf@ksp.com> <vwWs4.59$VM6.2271@burlma1-snr2> <38B55CF2.1B67F549@iname.com> <KHit4.20$I31.1102@burlma1-snr2> <38B66866.551F304A@iname.com> <87g0uh31xt.fsf@orion.dent.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de> <38B69611.C9220AFC@iname.com>
mail-copies-to: never
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Complaints-To: newsmaster@eunet.no
X-Trace: oslo-nntp.eunet.no 951493383 13153 195.0.192.66 (25 Feb 2000 15:43:03 GMT)
Organization: Naggum Software; +47 8800 8879 or +1 510 435 8604; fax: +47 2210 9077; http://www.naggum.no
User-Agent: Gnus/5.0803 (Gnus v5.8.3) Emacs/20.5
Mime-Version: 1.0
NNTP-Posting-Date: 25 Feb 2000 15:43:03 GMT
Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp

* "Fernando D. Mato Mira" <matomira@iname.com>
| Then why not just erasing every sentence saying "is undefined" or "is
| unspecified"?

  primarily because we're human readers in dire need of redundancy.

  secondarily because sometimes a requirement may seem to or actually imply
  a too broad claim and may therefore need to be abridged or partially
  retracted.

#:Erik