[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: is requiring cl bad?
From: |
Pascal J. Bourguignon |
Subject: |
Re: is requiring cl bad? |
Date: |
Sun, 16 Dec 2012 11:26:10 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.2 (gnu/linux) |
Xue Fuqiao <address@hidden> writes:
> On Sun, 16 Dec 2012 10:29:30 +0100
> Ivan Kanis <address@hidden> wrote:
>
>> I was under the impression that requiring cl was bad (TM). I can't
>> remember why. Is it still so?
>
> You can see these pages:
> http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2003-08/msg00436.html
> http://www.gnu.org/gnu/rms-lisp.html
> http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2007-09/msg01472.html
>
> BTW, what does "TM" mean(English is not my native language)?
It should be written as: ™ meaning Trade Mark, meaning "cl is bad" is a
registered trade mark. No it's not, but it's as famous as if it was.
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
A bad day in () is better than a good day in {}.
- is requiring cl bad?, Ivan Kanis, 2012/12/16
- Re: is requiring cl bad?, Xue Fuqiao, 2012/12/16
- Re: is requiring cl bad?, Stefan Monnier, 2012/12/16
- Re: is requiring cl bad?, Pascal J. Bourguignon, 2012/12/17
- Re: is requiring cl bad?, Tony Day, 2012/12/17
- Re: is requiring cl bad?, David De La Harpe Golden, 2012/12/19
- Re: is requiring cl bad?, Ivan Kanis, 2012/12/20
- Re: is requiring cl bad?, Helmut Eller, 2012/12/20
- Re: is requiring cl bad?, David De La Harpe Golden, 2012/12/21
- Re: is requiring cl bad?, Helmut Eller, 2012/12/21