From ...
From: Erik Naggum <erik@naggum.no>
Subject: Re: How does Lisp implement Primitive, Structured and User-defined data   types?
Date: 2000/04/21
Message-ID: <3165303464872531@naggum.no>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 613922130
References: <01a77a96.b6cdaadd@usw-ex0107-050.remarq.com> <38FC97D7.FC56820F@san.rr.com> <3165125538003989@naggum.no> <38FDE532.83DE52B1@san.rr.com>
mail-copies-to: never
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Complaints-To: newsmaster@eunet.no
X-Trace: oslo-nntp.eunet.no 956316507 2841 195.0.192.66 (21 Apr 2000 11:28:27 GMT)
Organization: Naggum Software; vox: +47 8800 8879; fax: +47 8800 8601; http://www.naggum.no
User-Agent: Gnus/5.0803 (Gnus v5.8.3) Emacs/20.5
Mime-Version: 1.0
NNTP-Posting-Date: 21 Apr 2000 11:28:27 GMT
Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp

* Courageous <jkraska1@san.rr.com>
| That's the point: once you've read the standard, you'll realize that for
| *Lisp*, there is no answer.  Only a particular vendors solution.  But
| that isn't Lisp, now, is it?

  I'm disappointed.  I was waiting for a "Lisp is not like that, Erik".

  I must assume from past experience that you won't ever understand that
  giving somebody the standard is not an answer to implementation issues,
  but will now proceed to call yourself "victim" and me "abuser" for
  pointing this out to you, and _blame_ me for your lack of understanding.

  instead of _actually_ going down that route, I'll just summarize it for
  us all: Joe Kraska will never relinquish the genuinely bad idea of giving
  someone the whole standard when they ask for _common_ implementations of
  certain aspects of Common Lisp, but will forever think his was a highly
  meritorious suggestion which was undeservedly bashed.  it is still wrong.

  now, refrain from following up, Joe Kraska.  we know what you will say.

#:Erik