From ... From: Erik Naggum Subject: Re: Lisp & SICP Date: 2000/05/16 Message-ID: <3167480499414391@naggum.no>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 624121458 References: <391E9C25.94F5C377@uniserve.com> <3167393469185860@naggum.no> <39202cd5$0$207@nntp1.ba.best.com> <39207010.3C2A4CE8@kenan.com> <3920b0da$0$220@nntp1.ba.best.com> <3167453250589287@naggum.no> mail-copies-to: never Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Complaints-To: newsmaster@eunet.no X-Trace: oslo-nntp.eunet.no 958493138 2454 195.0.192.66 (16 May 2000 16:05:38 GMT) Organization: Naggum Software; vox: +47 8800 8879; fax: +47 8800 8601; http://www.naggum.no User-Agent: Gnus/5.0803 (Gnus v5.8.3) Emacs/20.6 Mime-Version: 1.0 NNTP-Posting-Date: 16 May 2000 16:05:38 GMT Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp * Erik Naggum | Not using funcall means that the first position is never "stable" | and can never be trusted. This is a semantic difference in the | language communicated to the human readers. * Eli Barzilay | Except that you can modify functions, and you have lexical bindings | for functions, which makes it exactly as "stable" as plain variables. I take exception with "exactly as", but I get the impression that you still think I'm discussing Scheme in that sentence, where I'm contrasting real Lisps (which have funcall) to Scheme. #:Erik -- If this is not what you expected, please alter your expectations.