Subject: Re: PART ONE: Lisp & Education: Re: Norvig's latest paper on Lisp From: Erik Naggum <email@example.com> Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2002 18:21:08 GMT Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp Message-ID: <firstname.lastname@example.org> * James A. Crippen | I thought about getting the official ANSI spec, and bought it in electronic | form (which of course gives you every right to print it, so I wouldn't feel | bad). It turned out to be the shittiest 150 dpi scan I'd seen, even worse | than the old MIT AI Lab memos, and even worse than what the USPTO puts out | for old patents. A waste of my money. Indeed. A rip-off. Especially since they have the postscript files. | The other option is to update the TeX sources to the draft version of the | ANSI spec and put it out. But I'm not sure about the copyright on it... | Whether redistributing a modified form would be legal... As far as I can tell, the standard was printed from them. | The only complaint people really have about the LOOP macro is that even | though what you had was as ugly as sin in Java, what you end up with in Lisp | is *still* ugly. And I would _really_ like to see fewer aesthetic judgments sold as facts. -- Guide to non-spammers: If you want to send me a business proposal, please be specific and do not put "business proposal" in the Subject header. If it is urgent, do not use the word "urgent". If you need an immediate answer, give me a reason, do not shout "for your immediate attention". Thank you.