On 2006-02-06, C Y wrote: > --- Larry Clapp wrote: >> > It would be quite possible for a particular lisp to define >> > alternatives to virtually any part of the spec, and include those >> > as the "default" mode of operation. The "standard" definition >> > can be shadowed or some such. A truly "standard" behavior is >> > available if that is what's needed, and people can build from >> > there doing other things of interest. That way, there is always >> > a "core" common language that can be spoken at need. >> >> Yes, certainly, we can do that now. I <3 Packages. :) > ><<I <3 Packages.>> Parse error ;-) You mean in less than three > packages?
:) Sorry, no. "<3" is an emoticon for "<heart>". I <3 Packages === I <heart> Packages === I Love Packages I got that from my 19-year-old niece; maybe it hasn't hit the mainstream yet. :) [snip lots] > I don't mean any offense, No worries. I didn't take any. > and I appreciate the pointer that my focus may be too narrowly > centered on the desktop OS part of Lisp usage. Cool. Glad to help. :) -- Larry _______________________________________________ Gardeners mailing list [email protected] http://www.lispniks.com/mailman/listinfo/gardeners
