From ...
From: Erik Naggum <erik@naggum.no>
Subject: Re: Alternatives to EVAL
Date: 2000/04/02
Message-ID: <3163690457188144@naggum.no>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 605742271
References: <38E53B02.5FD4DA24@mindspring.com>
mail-copies-to: never
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Complaints-To: newsmaster@eunet.no
X-Trace: oslo-nntp.eunet.no 954703488 12899 195.0.192.66 (2 Apr 2000 19:24:48 GMT)
Organization: Naggum Software; vox: +47 8800 8879; fax: +47 8800 8601; http://www.naggum.no
User-Agent: Gnus/5.0803 (Gnus v5.8.3) Emacs/20.5
Mime-Version: 1.0
NNTP-Posting-Date: 2 Apr 2000 19:24:48 GMT
Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp

* "David E. Young" <youngde@mindspring.com>
| I've read that if EVAL is used explicitly within a program, it probably
| indicates poor design.

  the probability is not 1.0, however.  using EVAL in servers or programs
  that accept input from users or agents of users for the express purpose
  of evaluation in the Lisp world is good design -- reinventing your own
  EVAL at this point is poor design.

#:Erik