From ... Path: archiver1.google.com!newsfeed.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!134.222.94.5!npeer.kpnqwest.net!nreader1.kpnqwest.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp Subject: Re: Substring? References: <892f97d1.0108091339.3f808c98@posting.google.com><892f97d1.0108100559.378527e7@posting.google.com> Mail-Copies-To: never From: Erik Naggum Message-ID: <3208787836085563@naggum.net> Organization: Naggum Software, Oslo, Norway Lines: 9 User-Agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) Emacs/20.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2001 17:57:17 GMT X-Complaints-To: newsmaster@Norway.EU.net X-Trace: nreader1.kpnqwest.net 999799037 193.71.66.49 (Thu, 06 Sep 2001 19:57:17 MET DST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2001 19:57:17 MET DST Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.lisp:15763 * Kent M Pitman > Being non-standard is different than being anti-standard. Lisp leaves > room for things you can do that are not authorized by the standard, but > that's different than things you are told not to do. I think the term "extra-standard" is better than "non-standard", precisely for this reason. ///