To me it seems like the time has come to consider splitting up
comp.lang.lisp, by creating a new group: comp.lang.lisp.offtopic.
On second thoughts: it may not absorb that much volume from the main
group, since it could be hard to think of off-topic subjects that
would not be on-topic in an off-topic newsgroup.
;-)
---------------------------+--------------------------------------------------
Christian Lynbech | Ericsson Telebit A/S
Fax: +45 8628 8186 | Fabrikvej 11, DK-8260 Viby J
Phone: +45 8628 8177 + 28 | email: c...@tbit.dk --- URL: http://www.tbit.dk
---------------------------+--------------------------------------------------
Hit the philistines three times over the head with the Elisp reference manual.
- pet...@hal.com (Michael A. Petonic)
> To me it seems like the time has come to consider splitting up
> comp.lang.lisp, by creating a new group: comp.lang.lisp.offtopic.
Can't wait to go back to discuss new exciting variations of
the LET syntax/semantics (LET with non-determinism "MAY-LET", ...).
congratulations! you just contributed to the increase.
people with good newsreaders don't have your problem.
coping is a simple matter of programming.
#:Erik
--
(defun pringles (chips)
(loop (pop chips)))
Unfortunately, a lot of stuff that perhaps should be in the already
existing comp.lang.clos gets asked and answered here. Similarly for
comp.std.lisp and comp.org.lisp-users. I interpret (oops, better say
"evaluate") this as evidence that we can't really support a top-level
separation of the different threads. I think its a shame, because I
would prefer that separation.
And SHALL-LET for binding special variables without having to declare them.
Howard> Are you serious, Christian?
No. I guess I should have put in more smileys.