From ... From: Erik Naggum Subject: Re: Lisp XML parser ? Date: 2000/06/28 Message-ID: <3171188004076517@naggum.no>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 639978594 References: <39523341.CED20EE@bbn.com> <3170682110777797@naggum.no> <3dm3kuya.fsf@supelec.fr> <3170880537253039@naggum.no> <3170921063858188@naggum.no> <3171079864364898@naggum.no> mail-copies-to: never Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Complaints-To: newsmaster@eunet.no X-Trace: oslo-nntp.eunet.no 962199294 26661 195.0.192.66 (28 Jun 2000 13:34:54 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/20.7 Mime-Version: 1.0 NNTP-Posting-Date: 28 Jun 2000 13:34:54 GMT Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp * Christopher Browne | But the _intended_ meaning can vary considerably, depending on the | context of what data I stuck into WHATEVER, and what Lisp form this | reference is embedded into. Nonsense. Failure to include information about an enclosing form does not constitute a change of semantics for the form so enclosed. It is simply not useful to communicate with other people with a fear that everything they say might have been enclosed in a `not' form, and it is not useful to blame the recipient for not having taking such into account when interpreting the meaning of what they say. | Based on looking at a bit of code that says (car a1), I can't tell | much about what it means. No, obviously _you_ can't, since you have made up your mind that you can enclose a form in any form at all to _rob_ it of meaning, a pretty silly move, but necessary in order to argue that SGML _has_ meaning, since SGML has meaning _only_ relative to external sources and that hypothetical-mythical enclosing form has the same status for the Lisp forms: The Great Unknown Semantic Modifier. Once again, an SGML fan is displaying his lack of clue. Boring! #:Erik -- If this is not what you expected, please alter your expectations.