On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 12:01 PM, Svante Carl v. Erichsen
svante.v.erich...@web.de wrote:
I should call it string-conc, conc-string, or conc-string.
I actually agree. What I meant is that if you really want to use a
mathematical operator for this, multiplication is the natural choice.
Your
Svante Carl v. Erichsen svante.v.erich...@web.de writes:
Hi!
I should call it string-conc, conc-string, or conc-string. I should
not expect from first sight that either, string+ or string*, would
concatenate. From those names, it also would seem surprising that
they can take any
Drew Csillag (sounds like cheese-log) dcsil...@google.com writes:
Not to sound like I'm complaining (quicklisp is awesome btw), but if http://
www.quicklisp.org/beta/releases.html had descriptions of what the packages
actually did (or links to their respective homepage, or docstrings, or
Nick Levine n...@ravenbrook.com writes:
We're getting there. See http://www.quicklisp.org/
Especially, see http://www.quicklisp.org/beta/releases.html
It doesn't say what any one of them do. There's no way (am I right?)
to look up form what I want to do to what exists to do it.
Very
I have been a beginner lisp developer for years largely because the is just
a large problem with answering the question I want to make a website, but
what a pain to figure
out where to start, I want to X. I would be down to contribute.
This lisp learning curve is large, and figuring out the
