Re: Reasons for preferring Lisp, and for what
From: David Golden (david.golden_at_oceanfree.net)
Date: 11/06/03
- Next message: Dirk Thierbach: "Re: Explanation of macros; Haskell macros"
- Previous message: Pascal Costanza: "Re: Computability in principle"
- In reply to: Pascal Bourguignon: "Re: Reasons for preferring Lisp, and for what"
- Next in thread: Pascal Bourguignon: "Re: Reasons for preferring Lisp, and for what"
- Reply: Pascal Bourguignon: "Re: Reasons for preferring Lisp, and for what"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Thu, 06 Nov 2003 19:34:26 +0000
Pascal Bourguignon wrote:
>> All of them, yet none. Such is the buddha^h^h^hlambda nature.
>
> Ah! The budlambda nature!
>
> (Use control-W to delete a whole word ;-).
>
>
Yeah. normally I'm good about that. This time,
the reason I made the mistake of ^h^h^h is because I had written
zen^h^h^hlambda, but I decided buddha/lambda was a more appropriate
correspondence, changed zen to buddha, and failed to update my ^h count.
- Next message: Dirk Thierbach: "Re: Explanation of macros; Haskell macros"
- Previous message: Pascal Costanza: "Re: Computability in principle"
- In reply to: Pascal Bourguignon: "Re: Reasons for preferring Lisp, and for what"
- Next in thread: Pascal Bourguignon: "Re: Reasons for preferring Lisp, and for what"
- Reply: Pascal Bourguignon: "Re: Reasons for preferring Lisp, and for what"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
|