Re: What's so great about lisp?

Joe Marshall wrote:
> I think we can. We would need to quantify what you mean by
> `likelihood', nail down specifically `those kind of errors', and
> develop a criteria for `satisfaction'.

I am unsatisfied already. It would be easier to unify physics, IMHO. :-)

--
Dr Jon D Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy
http://www.ffconsultancy.com
.