[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Why is booleanp defined this way?
From: |
Rusi |
Subject: |
Re: Why is booleanp defined this way? |
Date: |
Sat, 18 Apr 2015 05:43:44 -0700 (PDT) |
User-agent: |
G2/1.0 |
On Saturday, April 18, 2015 at 1:22:40 PM UTC+5:30, Marcin Borkowski wrote:
> On 2015-04-18, at 04:55, Emanuel Berg wrote:
>
> > Meanwhile, most university people don't get that
> > programming languages are tools that should be
> > employed to do useful things, not runes to be analyzed
> > like some Noam Chomsky/Indiana Jones would the
> > paleo-Etruscan from half-disintegrated tomb stones!
>
> I guess whether (a) this "most university people" stuff was some kind of
> irony towards me
Nah! Mea Culprit.
- Re: Why is booleanp defined this way?, (continued)
- Re: Why is booleanp defined this way?, Emanuel Berg, 2015/04/17
- Re: Why is booleanp defined this way?, Rusi, 2015/04/17
- Re: Why is booleanp defined this way?, Emanuel Berg, 2015/04/17
- Re: Why is booleanp defined this way?, Barry Margolin, 2015/04/17
- Re: Why is booleanp defined this way?, Rusi, 2015/04/17
- Re: Why is booleanp defined this way?, Barry Margolin, 2015/04/18
- Re: Why is booleanp defined this way?, Emanuel Berg, 2015/04/19
- Re: Why is booleanp defined this way?, Emanuel Berg, 2015/04/19
- Re: Why is booleanp defined this way?, Emanuel Berg, 2015/04/18
- Re: Why is booleanp defined this way?, Marcin Borkowski, 2015/04/18
- Message not available
- Re: Why is booleanp defined this way?,
Rusi <=
- Re: Why is booleanp defined this way?, Pascal J. Bourguignon, 2015/04/18
- Re: Why is booleanp defined this way?, Rusi, 2015/04/18
Re: Why is booleanp defined this way?, Pascal J. Bourguignon, 2015/04/18