Subject: Re: Difference between LISP and C++
From: Erik Naggum <>
Date: 01 Nov 2002 01:12:34 +0000
Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp
Message-ID: <>

* Thomas F. Burdick
| Weren't you just demonstrating the breadth of your dictionary collection?

  But I also read the forewords of same and have worked with dictionary
  makers (one of the few benefits of working with SGML) so know something
  about how these definitions are both constructed and intended to be read.

| Webster's second definition is "villein" :
| <>

  When an entry is simply a redirection, the preferred action when writing
  is not to use the word that was redirected if one means the word to which
  it was redirected, and when reading, to understand that the main entry
  word is the historically preferred, so even if there is a sense that only
  redirects to another, it has much less historical significance than one
  with its own definition.  So in this case, I ignored the redirection when
  I looked it up because "villein" is a different word with a different
  history than "villain" even if "villain" has been used where "villein"
  would be the better choice.  As far as I can tell, "villain" is uniformly
  bad, while the general lack of spelling conventions until recently could
  have produced texts where what would now be a typo would then have been

Erik Naggum, Oslo, Norway

Act from reason, and failure makes you rethink and study harder.
Act from faith, and failure makes you blame someone and push harder.