[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Lisp vs. Scheme Emacs

To: scheme@mc.lcs.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Lisp vs. Scheme Emacs
From: agate!saturn!kjell@labrea.stanford.edu (Kjell Post)
Date: Fri ,2 Dec 88 02:42:46 EDT
Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz
References: <237@cs-spool.calgary.UUCP>, <82000004@uicbert.eecs.uic.edu>
Sender: scheme-request@mc.lcs.mit.edu

In article <82000004@uicbert.eecs.uic.edu> wilson@uicbert.eecs.uic.edu writes:
>
>On the other hand, in Stallman's paper on EMACS, he says that it
>exploits dynamic binding for flexibility.

How can a *bug* be considered flexible?

(Boy, am I in trouble now...)
-- 
      For athletes and programmers,  ! Kjell E. Post
a woman is the end of their career.  ! CIS/CE
                                     ! University of California, Santa Cruz
              -- A.Wickberg          ! Email: kjell@saturn.ucsc.edu

References:
- Lisp vs. Scheme Emacs
  - From: att!alberta!calgary!cpsc!jameson@bloom-beacon.mit.edu (Kevin Jameson)
- Re: Lisp vs. Scheme Emacs
  - From: uxg.cso.uiuc.edu!uicbert.eecs.uic.edu!wilson@uxc.cso.uiuc.edu

Prev by Date: Re: Lisp vs. Scheme Emacs
Next by Date: Re: Lisp vs. Scheme Emacs
Previous by thread: Re: Lisp vs. Scheme Emacs
Next by thread: Re: Lisp vs. Scheme Emacs
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread