Subject: Re: On nil qua false [was: Re: On conditionals] From: Erik Naggum <firstname.lastname@example.org> Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 07:19:57 GMT Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp Message-ID: <email@example.com> * Andreas Bogk | People's opinion about this one varies, as well as about other features. | The argument "It's not broken because CL says so" doesn't count. "It is not illegal just because the law says so", said the criminal, ... | I'm interested in arguments that sound like "CL does the Right | Thing because..." or "CL does the Wrong Thing because...". ... "I am only interested in arguments that sound like <whatever>". I think we have ourselves another specimen of that immature humanoid who has yet to figure out that _people_ actually count. Let me be nasty for a second. How old are you, Andreas? 18? 16? That people can agree to things without proof of excellence is a good thing. But I guess Dylan is just as anal-retentive as Scheme and that the reason we have a current influx of Dylanites is that nothing happens in the Dylan community. The biggest problem with all these "logical" types is that they have no clue how to choose the premises from which they draw their conclusions, they just take them for granted, unquestioned, received by revelation, and cannot fathom that anyone would disagree with their premises, only with their conclusions. E.g., the premise that technical debates in a community who has already agreed on a large standard are based in logic from _their_ choice of technical premises. That is simply _wrong_. /// -- The past is not more important than the future, despite what your culture has taught you. Your future observations, conclusions, and beliefs are more important to you than those in your past ever will be. The world is changing so fast the balance between the past and the future has shifted.