You are an idiot. Common Lisp is only one of a number of Lisps, though more popular than most. Scheme may or may not be a Lisp (it is a call-by-value impure untyped/unitype functional language with s-expression syntax, macro systems, a special top-level environment, and letrec), but it derives directly from Lisp, was invented in large part by the creator of Common Lisp, and is generally considered a Lisp.
> You are an idiot. Common Lisp is only one of a number of Lisps, > though more popular than most. Scheme may or may not be a Lisp > (it is a call-by-value impure untyped/unitype functional language > with s-expression syntax, macro systems, a special top-level > environment, and letrec), but it derives directly from Lisp, was > invented in large part by the creator of Common Lisp, and is generally > considered a Lisp.
You should be aware that this guy has been trolling comp.lang.lisp on the effective pretext that he's trying to "learn Lisp" but based on loudly trumpeting his misunderstandings of the ANSI standard as being /errors/ in the standard.
The bizarre part is that he apparently doesn't really know much of the language, but heads to some of the most abstruse edges to find what he regards as 'errors in the language.'
If he visited Scheme, I'm sure that call/cc and some of the more perverse lambda function forms would prove "grist for the mill."
And unlike the disputes that occasionally take place over what the pathological contents of lists ought to be (the "Bushnell controversy"), where know that the people involved in the dispute are knowledgeable as they have actually /written/ Scheme implementations, you'd get bald statements like
>> i've read them.
>> scheme makes no sense.
And if you respond to that the least bit unkindly, you'll get accused of "not being friendly."
"I had recent occasion to view your Presentation Announcement on care and feeding of automatic weapons during lecture hall. I found it most amusing. I would very much like to see and/or contribute future material.
We have similar problems here at Berkeley, though it has been difficult to wean our students away from more the more mundane assortment of Browning Hi-Power's, Beretta 92SBF's and Sig-Sauer P226's. The 9mm clique is pretty strong here, and the young grad students fairly parsimonious. They tend to balk at the idea of spending enough money on ammo to make full auto firefights practical. Lately, they've taken to sniping at each other from the Campanile tower and engaging in loose hit-and-run guerrilla tactics during finals. This is obviously not the American Way and needs to be changed. While I've been able to slowly wean them into more progressive arms (such as the Beretta 93R and an occasional mini-uzi), I still can't seem to get past the supply problem.
My questions are:
"Do you buy your ammo in bulk, or do appointed individuals do shifts on a progressive reloader?"
"Does the school pay for this?"
:-) -- (concatenate 'string "cbbrowne" "@ntlug.org") http://cbbrowne.com/info/linuxdistributions.html Rules of the Evil Overlord #95. "My dungeon will have its own qualified medical staff complete with bodyguards. That way if a prisoner becomes sick and his cellmate tells the guard it's an emergency, the guard will fetch a trauma team instead of opening up the cell for a look." <http://www.eviloverlord.com/>
Common Lisp is the "stop-this-desaster-you-stubborn-kids-lisp"
LISP dialects unified.
> though more popular than most. Scheme may or may not be a Lisp > (it is a call-by-value impure untyped/unitype functional language > with s-expression syntax, macro systems, a special top-level > environment, and letrec),
funny things all this.
> but it derives directly from Lisp,
aha.
> was invented in large part by the creator of Common Lisp,
Christopher Browne wrote: > A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away, Feuer <fe...@his.com> wrote:
>>ilias wrote:
>>>i've read them.
>>>scheme makes no sense.
>>>all lisp-dialects => common lisp.
>>>scheme not.
>>>scheme = the most stubborn lispers.
>>>at least it looks so.
>>>anyway.
>>You are an idiot. Common Lisp is only one of a number of Lisps, >>though more popular than most. Scheme may or may not be a Lisp >>(it is a call-by-value impure untyped/unitype functional language >>with s-expression syntax, macro systems, a special top-level >>environment, and letrec), but it derives directly from Lisp, was >>invented in large part by the creator of Common Lisp, and is generally >>considered a Lisp.
> You should be aware that this guy has been trolling comp.lang.lisp on > the effective pretext that he's trying to "learn Lisp" but based on > loudly trumpeting his misunderstandings of the ANSI standard as being > /errors/ in the standard.
i'd like to ask you to not spread missinformation and to not discredit my person.
what you are stating above is simply a form of: this guy lies.
whatever i do in c.l.l. was publically anounced in c.l.l.
i'm assimilating the best of lisp, throwing away its garbage (means: avoid to use/learn the parts that i detect as irrelevant, redundant etc.).
> The bizarre part is that he apparently doesn't really know much of the > language, but heads to some of the most abstruse edges to find what he > regards as 'errors in the language.'
> If he visited Scheme, I'm sure that call/cc and some of the more > perverse lambda function forms would prove "grist for the mill."
> And unlike the disputes that occasionally take place over what the > pathological contents of lists ought to be (the "Bushnell > controversy"), where know that the people involved in the dispute are > knowledgeable as they have actually /written/ Scheme implementations, > you'd get bald statements like
>>>i've read them.
>>>scheme makes no sense.
> And if you respond to that the least bit unkindly, you'll get accused > of "not being friendly."
> "I had recent occasion to view your Presentation Announcement on care > and feeding of automatic weapons during lecture hall. I found it most > amusing. I would very much like to see and/or contribute future > material.
> We have similar problems here at Berkeley, though it has been > difficult to wean our students away from more the more mundane > assortment of Browning Hi-Power's, Beretta 92SBF's and Sig-Sauer > P226's. The 9mm clique is pretty strong here, and the young grad > students fairly parsimonious. They tend to balk at the idea of > spending enough money on ammo to make full auto firefights > practical. Lately, they've taken to sniping at each other from the > Campanile tower and engaging in loose hit-and-run guerrilla tactics > during finals. This is obviously not the American Way and needs to be > changed. While I've been able to slowly wean them into more > progressive arms (such as the Beretta 93R and an occasional mini-uzi), > I still can't seem to get past the supply problem.
> My questions are:
> "Do you buy your ammo in bulk, or do appointed individuals do shifts > on a progressive reloader?"
* at news wrote: > It should be a subset of ANSI Common Lisp.
call/cc.
I advise anyone who reads cls without reading cll and is considering getting into a discussion with Ilias to have a quick search on Google groups (http://groups.google.com/groups?safe=images&ie=ISO-8859-1&as_ugroup=c...) for his postings in cll to see what kind of thing you are likely to get into.
(Newsgroups trimmed due to the incendiary of the text)
ilias <at_n...@pontos.net> writes: > Christopher Browne wrote: > > You should be aware that this guy has been trolling comp.lang.lisp on > > the effective pretext that he's trying to "learn Lisp" but based on > > loudly trumpeting his misunderstandings of the ANSI standard as being > > /errors/ in the standard.
> what you are stating above is simply a form of: this guy lies.
What he said was: you are clueless. That's different.
> i'm assimilating the best of lisp, throwing away its garbage (means: > avoid to use/learn the parts that i detect as irrelevant, redundant > etc.).
Ah so you really want to program in Scheme, eh?
david rush -- Don't you think it would be a useful item to add to your intellectual tookit to be capable of saying, when a ton of wet steaming bullshit lands on your head, "My goodness, this appears to be bullshit?" -- Douglas MacArthur Shaftoe, in_Cryptonomicon_
>>>You should be aware that this guy has been trolling comp.lang.lisp on >>>the effective pretext that he's trying to "learn Lisp" but based on >>>loudly trumpeting his misunderstandings of the ANSI standard as being >>>/errors/ in the standard.
>>what you are stating above is simply a form of: this guy lies.
> What he said was: you are clueless. That's different.
"has been trolling comp.lang.lisp" "on the effective pretext" "that he's trying to "learn lisp""
>>i'm assimilating the best of lisp, throwing away its garbage (means: >>avoid to use/learn the parts that i detect as irrelevant, redundant >>etc.).
> Ah so you really want to program in Scheme, eh?
assimilating the best of lisp does not end up in Scheme.
David Rush wrote: > ilias <at_n...@pontos.net> writes: >> what you are stating above is simply a form of: this guy >> lies.
> What he said was: you are clueless. That's different.
>> i'm assimilating the best of lisp, throwing away its >> garbage (means: avoid to use/learn the parts that i >> detect as irrelevant, redundant etc.).
ilias <at_n...@pontos.net> writes: > David Rush wrote: > > (Newsgroups trimmed due to the incendiary of the text) > > ilias <at_n...@pontos.net> writes:
> >>Christopher Browne wrote:
> >>>You should be aware that this guy has been trolling comp.lang.lisp on > >>>the effective pretext that he's trying to "learn Lisp" but based on > >>>loudly trumpeting his misunderstandings of the ANSI standard as being > >>>/errors/ in the standard.
> >>what you are stating above is simply a form of: this guy lies. > > What he said was: you are clueless. That's different.
> "has been trolling comp.lang.lisp" > "on the effective pretext" > "that he's trying to "learn lisp""
These statements are an accurate summary.
I think that David Rush has given ilias the benefit of the doubt in calling him `clueless', however. ilias has persisted in posting patently false statements despite receiving reasonable critique and instruction from experienced lisp hackers.
Joe Marshall wrote: > ilias <at_n...@pontos.net> writes:
>>David Rush wrote:
>>>(Newsgroups trimmed due to the incendiary of the text) >>>ilias <at_n...@pontos.net> writes:
>>>>Christopher Browne wrote:
>>>>>You should be aware that this guy has been trolling comp.lang.lisp on >>>>>the effective pretext that he's trying to "learn Lisp" but based on >>>>>loudly trumpeting his misunderstandings of the ANSI standard as being >>>>>/errors/ in the standard.
>>>>what you are stating above is simply a form of: this guy lies.
>>>What he said was: you are clueless. That's different.
>>"has been trolling comp.lang.lisp" >>"on the effective pretext" >>"that he's trying to "learn lisp""
> These statements are an accurate summary.
this summary implies: i'm not telling the truth.
> I think that David Rush has given ilias the benefit of the doubt in > calling him `clueless', however. ilias has persisted in posting > patently false statements despite receiving reasonable critique and > instruction from experienced lisp hackers.
you are posting just a patently false statement. and that is about my person.
the reasonable critique of those savages in c.l.l. stopes when they see that they get reasonable critique back.
> > [Scheme] was invented in large part by the creator of Common Lisp,
> who is that?
"The creator of Common Lisp" may be a bit strong, but the person in question is Guy Lewis Steele Jr.
If you wish to truly learn about Lisp and Scheme, you could do worse than to read the lambda papers by Steele and Sussman: http://library.readscheme.org/page1.html
> Scheme is simply redundant.
> It should be a subset of ANSI Common Lisp.
If you read the above papers, you'll understand that this is a little like saying "Relational calculus is simply redundant. It should be a subset of SQL-92."
Anton van Straaten wrote: >>>[Scheme] was invented in large part by the creator of Common Lisp,
>>who is that?
> "The creator of Common Lisp" may be a bit strong,
yes, a little overstated.
> but the person in question > is Guy Lewis Steele Jr.
aha.
read something about him.
works @sun.
since 1994.
did he left his baby (Scheme)?
> If you wish to truly learn about Lisp and Scheme, you could do worse than to > read the lambda papers by Steele and Sussman: > http://library.readscheme.org/page1.html
scheme community looks much better organized than common lisp community.
>>Scheme is simply redundant.
>>It should be a subset of ANSI Common Lisp.
> If you read the above papers, you'll understand that this is a little like > saying "Relational calculus is simply redundant. It should be a subset of > SQL-92."
cannot judge that.
don't know what 'relational calculus' is.
but i sense that your comparision is wrong.
anyway.
as i'd like to avoid reading to much:
can you tell me, if scheme has:
- the syntax-modification-capabilities of Common-Lisp (readtable, reader-macros, etc.)? - the macro-system-capabilities of Common-Lisp?
> >>>(Newsgroups trimmed due to the incendiary of the text) > >>>ilias <at_n...@pontos.net> writes:
> >>>>Christopher Browne wrote:
> >>>>>You should be aware that this guy has been trolling comp.lang.lisp on > >>>>>the effective pretext that he's trying to "learn Lisp" but based on > >>>>>loudly trumpeting his misunderstandings of the ANSI standard as being > >>>>>/errors/ in the standard.
> >>>>what you are stating above is simply a form of: this guy lies.
> >>>What he said was: you are clueless. That's different.
> >>"has been trolling comp.lang.lisp" > >>"on the effective pretext" > >>"that he's trying to "learn lisp"" > > These statements are an accurate summary.
> this summary implies: i'm not telling the truth.
Certainly you are posting things that are demonstrably false.
> > I think that David Rush has given ilias the benefit of the doubt in > > calling him `clueless', however. ilias has persisted in posting > > patently false statements despite receiving reasonable critique and > > instruction from experienced lisp hackers.
> you are posting just a patently false statement. and that is about my > person.
To wit: ``the innermost [backquoted form] is not expanded first'' That this is false has been demonstrated by five different people. You nonetheless have continued to post articles that claim that backquoted forms are incorrectly expanded.
Another example: ``An ANSI Conforming Common Lisp implementation *must* execute:
(set-syntax-from-char #\] #\) ) ; => T (set-syntax-from-char #\[ #\( ) ; => T [+ 3 2] ; => 5''
This posted after numerous people (myself included) have pointed out that the ANSI standard explicitly states ``The definition of ( can not be meaningfully copied to {, on the other hand. The result is that lists are of the form {a b c), not {a b c}, because the definition always looks for a closing parenthesis, not a closing brace.''
Over a dozen people have pointed out this error to you in literally hundreds of responses, yet you still post that statement.
In regards to those two topics, not a single person --- not one --- believed that you had done anything but misinterpret the spec.
I stand by my statement: ``ilias has persisted in posting patently false statements despite receiving reasonable critique and instruction from experienced lisp hackers.''
> the reasonable critique of those savages in c.l.l. stopes when they > see that they get reasonable critique back.
>>>>>>>You should be aware that this guy has been trolling comp.lang.lisp on >>>>>>>the effective pretext that he's trying to "learn Lisp" but based on >>>>>>>loudly trumpeting his misunderstandings of the ANSI standard as being >>>>>>>/errors/ in the standard. >>>>>>what you are stating above is simply a form of: this guy lies. >>>>>What he said was: you are clueless. That's different. >>>>"has been trolling comp.lang.lisp" >>>>"on the effective pretext" >>>>"that he's trying to "learn lisp"" >>>These statements are an accurate summary. >>this summary implies: i'm not telling the truth. > Certainly you are posting things that are demonstrably false.
go there.
demonstrate it *in* the argumentation lines.
not here, like a kid screaming @mama.
>>>I think that David Rush has given ilias the benefit of the doubt in >>>calling him `clueless', however. ilias has persisted in posting >>>patently false statements despite receiving reasonable critique and >>>instruction from experienced lisp hackers. >> >>you are posting just a patently false statement. and that is about my >>person. > > To wit: ``the innermost [backquoted form] is not expanded first'' That > this is false has been demonstrated by five different people. You > nonetheless have continued to post articles that claim that backquoted > forms are incorrectly expanded.
the innermost backquoted form is *not* expanded first.
go to the topic.
> Another example: ``An ANSI Conforming Common Lisp implementation > *must* execute: > > (set-syntax-from-char #\] #\) ) ; => T > (set-syntax-from-char #\[ #\( ) ; => T > [+ 3 2] ; => 5'' > > This posted after numerous people (myself included) have pointed out > that the ANSI standard explicitly states > ``The definition of ( can not be meaningfully copied to {, on the other hand. > The result is that lists are of the form {a b c), not {a b c}, because the > definition always looks for a closing parenthesis, not a closing brace.''
the standard has other sections, which supersedes this paragraph.
-------------------------------------------------------------------- *Claim* (shortform, see section [claim] for details):
An ANSI Conforming Common Lisp implementation *must* execute:
(set-syntax-from-char #\] #\) ) ; => T (set-syntax-from-char #\[ #\( ) ; => T [+ 3 2] ; => 5
*Rationales* (shortforms, see sections [derivation <x>] for details):
The standard document defines explicitly:
*Rationale a)* - see section [derivation a] " A *right-parenthesis* terminates any token, and the *right-parenthesis-reader macro function* is called no matter where the *right-parenthesis* appears."
*Rationale b)* - see section [derivation b] "[...] Upon encountering a *right-parenthesis* the *function READ* calls the *right-parenthesis-reader macro function*"
*Rationale c)* - see section [derivation c] " A *right-parenthesis* has an associated function called a reader macro function that implements its specialized parsing behavior. [...] "
> > In regards to those two topics, not a single person --- not one --- > believed that you had done anything but misinterpret the spec.
this is wrong.
one believes that nested backquote definition is written 'defective' in the specs.
> I stand by my statement: ``ilias has persisted in posting patently > false statements despite receiving reasonable critique and instruction > from experienced lisp hackers.''
feel free.
savages.
the real lisp experts and lisp lovers must be at another place.
>>the reasonable critique of those savages in c.l.l. stopes when they >>see that they get reasonable critique back. >> >>i claim. >> >>they rejoin. >> >>i rejoin. >> >>the say: crazy guy. >> >>the say: <silince> > > I suggest you get used to this.
ilias <at_n...@pontos.net> writes: > the reasonable critique of those savages in c.l.l. stopes when they see > that they get reasonable critique back.
they stop when they see that no matter what, you will not change your mind and you will not change the subject. it is a difficult condition to deal with unless one is a specialist...
oz -- there is a fault in reality. do not adjust your minds. -- salman rushdie
ilias <at_n...@pontos.net> writes: > Joe Marshall wrote:
> > In regards to those two topics, not a single person --- not one --- > > believed that you had done anything but misinterpret the spec.
> this is wrong.
In article <kwfzw4j1n9....@merced.netfonds.no> Espen Vestre states very clearly that `the spec is not wrong' and that you are misinterpreting a certain vagueness in the spec. Your response:
`the specs is *wrong*.'
Espen Vestre at a later date retracted his assertion that the spec was vague.
To my knowledge, there is no poster on comp.lang.lisp (other than yourself) that believes the specification of backquote in ANSI common lisp is incorrect.
Dunno when the last time I laughed that hard was...
-- Robert Uhl <r...@4dv.net> We English-speaking peoples should keep hold of the essential fact about foreign languages: They exist to make us laugh. --John Derbyshire
