From ... Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!212.43.194.69!fr.clara.net!heighliner.fr.clara.net!lirmm.fr!cines.fr!univ-lyon1.fr!nmaster.kpnqwest.net!nreader2.kpnqwest.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp Subject: Re: original Lisp and Common Lisp References: <42e37222.0112042055.5f140e4@posting.google.com> <3C0EBDF2.603ACDC0@juno.com> Mail-Copies-To: never From: Erik Naggum Message-ID: <3216598441368167@naggum.net> Organization: Naggum Software, Oslo, Norway Lines: 15 User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2001 03:34:02 GMT X-Complaints-To: newsmaster@KPNQwest.no X-Trace: nreader2.kpnqwest.net 1007609642 193.71.66.49 (Thu, 06 Dec 2001 04:34:02 MET) NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2001 04:34:02 MET Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.lisp:22001 * Jeff Sandys | Isn't Common Lisp a super set of original Lisp (whatever original means)? No. Just as the music that can be described by the note system is not a superset of original music (whatever that means). Your question implies that no mistakes were made in "original Lisp", no tradeoffs would need to be revisited. /// -- The past is not more important than the future, despite what your culture has taught you. Your future observations, conclusions, and beliefs are more important to you than those in your past ever will be. The world is changing so fast the balance between the past and the future has shifted.