simulating local lexical variables with symbol macros
in [Lisp]
|
Prev: Mistake in the specification of rotatef ?
Next: [ann] LTK based libraries Runtime Library 3.0 and Gestalt Items 1.1
From: mdj on 17 Nov 2009 23:48 On Nov 18, 11:30 am, Ron Garret <rNOSPA...(a)flownet.com> wrote: > It would be funnier if not for the sad fact that Vassil Nikolov's code, > which IMHO is very interesting indeed, has been completely ignored by > everyone participating in this farce. (For those of you too young to > remember, Vassil's code is the first message in this thread.) I completely agree. I had a play with it over the weekend and think it's beautifully done. Sorry Vassil for generating so much noise :-S Matt
From: mdj on 18 Nov 2009 00:10 On Nov 18, 2:47 pm, Kenneth Tilton <kentil...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > mdj wrote: > > On Nov 17, 11:54 pm, Madhu <enom...(a)meer.net> wrote: > > >> No. My point was valid. I use language to make a point. I accept I am > >> sloppy and my languge is not the best, but I am making it in a context > >> that does not include you among your target audience. I expect the > >> audience to be familiar with the jargon. Even if I make a mistake, it > >> makes no difference --- I'm using the words to communicate a point. > > > Okay. Now that you concede that you're sloppy and your use of language > > is poor, you can no longer argue that your usage of it accurately > > conveys your point. This statement, like many of your others, is an > > obvious non sequitur. > > Oh, my, what a disappointing rejoinder, twisting the man's words like > that to suit your porpoises. :-) You're right, that was lazy. Flippant even, or perhaps flipperant if that suits your sense of punnery better. > Does your Mom know you post this stuff? She would probably forgive me on relative grounds, since my response was less vacuous than the statement but she's currently unavailable for comment so for the moment Mum will have to be the word. > >> When language is subject to different interpretation or misunderstanding > >> the way forward is to clarify intentions and seek clarification. > > Come on, let's use English, shall we? > > "Language, being subject to disjoint interpopulatory sets of people, > hey, all hell breaks loose." Indeed. I sought clarification but met only chicanery. Thank you though for the amusing segue. Matt
From: Madhu on 18 Nov 2009 00:16 * mdj <6d4ea688-5be7-48d1-b551-97ab05604110(a)b25g2000prb.googlegroups.com> : Wrote on Tue, 17 Nov 2009 21:10:52 -0800 (PST): | On Nov 18, 2:47 pm, Kenneth Tilton <kentil...(a)gmail.com> wrote: |> mdj wrote: |> > On Nov 17, 11:54 pm, Madhu <enom...(a)meer.net> wrote: |> |> >> No. My point was valid. I use language to make a point. I accept I am |> >> sloppy and my languge is not the best, but I am making it in a context |> >> that does not include you among your target audience. I expect the |> >> audience to be familiar with the jargon. Even if I make a mistake, it |> >> makes no difference --- I'm using the words to communicate a point. |> |> > Okay. Now that you concede that you're sloppy and your use of language |> > is poor, you can no longer argue that your usage of it accurately |> > conveys your point. This statement, like many of your others, is an |> > obvious non sequitur. |> |> Oh, my, what a disappointing rejoinder, twisting the man's words like |> that to suit your porpoises. <snip> |> >> When language is subject to different interpretation or misunderstanding |> >> the way forward is to clarify intentions and seek clarification. | Indeed. I sought clarification but met only chicanery. Thank you | though for the amusing segue. You continually receive the clarification you seek for instead choose to twist it to chicanery which suits your purpose (of trolling) See what you're doing here? -- Madhu
From: Kenneth Tilton on 18 Nov 2009 00:35 mdj wrote: > On Nov 18, 2:47 pm, Kenneth Tilton <kentil...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> mdj wrote: >>> On Nov 17, 11:54 pm, Madhu <enom...(a)meer.net> wrote: >>>> No. My point was valid. I use language to make a point. I accept I am >>>> sloppy and my languge is not the best, but I am making it in a context >>>> that does not include you among your target audience. I expect the >>>> audience to be familiar with the jargon. Even if I make a mistake, it >>>> makes no difference --- I'm using the words to communicate a point. >>> Okay. Now that you concede that you're sloppy and your use of language >>> is poor, you can no longer argue that your usage of it accurately >>> conveys your point. This statement, like many of your others, is an >>> obvious non sequitur. >> Oh, my, what a disappointing rejoinder, twisting the man's words like >> that to suit your porpoises. > > :-) You're right, that was lazy. Flippant even, or perhaps flipperant > if that suits your sense of punnery better. > >> Does your Mom know you post this stuff? > > She would probably forgive me on relative grounds, since my response > was less vacuous than the statement but she's currently unavailable > for comment so for the moment Mum will have to be the word. > >>>> When language is subject to different interpretation or misunderstanding >>>> the way forward is to clarify intentions and seek clarification. >> Come on, let's use English, shall we? >> >> "Language, being subject to disjoint interpopulatory sets of people, >> hey, all hell breaks loose." > > Indeed. I sought clarification but met only chicanery. Thank you > though for the amusing segue. Jeez, what a suck up! kzo -- http://thelaughingstockatpngs.com/ http://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Laughingstock/115923141782?ref=nf
From: Kenneth Tilton on 18 Nov 2009 00:38
Tim Bradshaw wrote: > I'd just like to point out that it turns out we never did need Erik for > this kind of endless futility. Indeed, I think this whole thing would > probably have been a lot more entertaining if he'd still been here > (though I've not read any of the last fixnum articles including the one > I'm following up to, so maybe there is entertainment yet to be had). > You just smell a reality series and are trying to horn your way in. End of the line, buddy! kzo -- http://thelaughingstockatpngs.com/ http://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Laughingstock/115923141782?ref=nf |