From ...
From: Erik Naggum <erik@naggum.no>
Subject: Re: Avoiding unintentional variable capture
Date: 1999/09/10
Message-ID: <3145965845586287@naggum.no>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 523416034
References: <37d6b784.46829757@judy> <37D7A8D8.DED7E340@pindar.com> <37d80efb.36196818@judy> <4n1zc7k8wk.fsf@rtp.ericsson.se> <37d907de.99911535@judy>
mail-copies-to: never
X-Complaints-To: usenet@news.eunet.no
X-Trace: oslo-nntp.eunet.no 936977047 958 193.71.66.49 (10 Sep 1999 15:24:07 GMT)
Organization: Naggum Software; +47 8800 8879; +1 510 435 8604; http://www.naggum.no
NNTP-Posting-Date: 10 Sep 1999 15:24:07 GMT
Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp

* Reini Urban
| using macros just not to evaluate one of its arguments is lame. 
| lambdas are better.

  then why don't you just program in Scheme?  sometimes, I think the Lisp1
  vs Lispn thing really _is_ about doing things one way or one of n ways.

  what I really _don't_ understand is why Scheme freaks need to _prove_
  Kent's points.  it would seem much more rational to work very hard to
  _disprove_ all his claims.

#:Erik
-- 
  it's election time in Norway.  explains everything, doesn't it?