kplug-lpsg  

Messages by Date

• 2008/02/02 Lisp humor. David Brown
• 2008/02/01 Re: Please help decode this jargon from Scheme (R5RS) spec.... SJS
• 2008/02/01 Re: Please help decode this jargon from Scheme (R5RS) spec.... David Brown
• 2008/02/01 Re: Interesting little programming problem Darren New
• 2008/02/01 Re: Interesting little programming problem David Brown
• 2008/02/01 Re: Please help decode this jargon from Scheme (R5RS) spec.... Andrew Lentvorski
• 2008/02/01 Re: Please help decode this jargon from Scheme (R5RS) spec.... Bob La Quey
• 2008/01/31 Re: Interesting little programming problem Andrew Lentvorski
• 2008/01/31 Re: Interesting little programming problem Andrew Lentvorski
• 2008/01/31 Re: Interesting little programming problem Andrew Lentvorski
• 2008/01/31 Please help decode this jargon from Scheme (R5RS) spec.... chris
• 2008/01/31 Re: Interesting little programming problem chris
• 2008/01/31 Re: Tree Recursion Example Mark Schoonover
• 2008/01/31 Re: Tree Recursion Example David Brown
• 2008/01/31 Re: Interesting little programming problem David Brown
• 2008/01/31 Re: Interesting little programming problem David Brown
• 2008/01/31 Re: Tree Recursion Example Mark Schoonover
• 2008/01/31 Re: Interesting little programming problem chris
• 2008/01/31 Re: Interesting little programming problem Andrew Lentvorski
• 2008/01/31 Re: Do we *want* Scheme/Lisp/Arc to succeed in the marketplace? chris
• 2008/01/31 Re: Interesting little programming problem chris
• 2008/01/31 Re: Interesting little programming problem James G. Sack (jim)
• 2008/01/31 Interesting little programming problem Andrew Lentvorski
• 2008/01/31 Re: Do we *want* Scheme/Lisp/Arc to succeed in the marketplace? Andrew Lentvorski
• 2008/01/30 Re: Do we *want* Scheme/Lisp/Arc to succeed in the marketplace? David Brown
• 2008/01/30 Re: Tree Recursion Example David Brown
• 2008/01/30 Re: Do we *want* Scheme/Lisp/Arc to succeed in the marketplace? Andrew Lentvorski
• 2008/01/30 Tree Recursion Example Mark Schoonover
• 2008/01/30 Re: Do we *want* Scheme/Lisp/Arc to succeed in the marketplace? Tracy R Reed
• 2008/01/30 Re: Do we *want* Scheme/Lisp/Arc to succeed in the marketplace? David Brown
• 2008/01/30 RE: Do we *want* Scheme/Lisp/Arc to succeed in the marketplace? Gabriel Sechan
• 2008/01/30 Do we *want* Scheme/Lisp/Arc to succeed in the marketplace? chris
• 2008/01/29 New LISP implementation Brad Beyenhof
• 2008/01/27 Re: Why is the ugly "#f" Scheme's FALSE symbol rather than an empty list () ? Brad Beyenhof
• 2008/01/27 Re: Why is the ugly "#f" Scheme's FALSE symbol rather than an empty list () ? David Brown
• 2008/01/27 Re: Why is the ugly "#f" Scheme's FALSE symbol rather than an empty list () ? Brad Beyenhof
• 2008/01/27 [announce] Cobra 0.7 Chuck Esterbrook
• 2008/01/27 Re: Why is the ugly "#f" Scheme's FALSE symbol rather than an empty list () ? David Brown
• 2008/01/27 Re: tail recursion questions David Brown
• 2008/01/27 Re: Why not make "if" *not* be a special form in Scheme?. David Brown
• 2008/01/27 Re: Why not make "if" *not* be a special form in Scheme?. David Brown
• 2008/01/26 Re: Why not make "if" *not* be a special form in Scheme?. Christopher Smith
• 2008/01/26 Re: SICP Progress (Was Re: Section 1.1 Exercises (Responses Have Answers)) Mark Schoonover
• 2008/01/26 Re: Section 1.1 Exercises (Responses Have Answers) chris
• 2008/01/26 Re: SICP Progress (Was Re: Section 1.1 Exercises (Responses Have Answers)) chris
• 2008/01/26 SICP Assignmet #2 Mark Schoonover
• 2008/01/26 Re: Why does Scheme need both "cond-else" and "if" constructs? Mark Schoonover
• 2008/01/26 Re: SICP Progress (Was Re: Section 1.1 Exercises (Responses Have Answers)) Mark Schoonover
• 2008/01/26 Re: SICP Progress (Was Re: Section 1.1 Exercises (Responses Have Answers)) Brad Beyenhof
• 2008/01/26 Re: Why is the ugly "#f" Scheme's FALSE symbol rather than an empty list () ? Andrew Lentvorski
• 2008/01/26 Re: SICP Progress (Was Re: Section 1.1 Exercises (Responses Have Answers)) Mark Schoonover
• 2008/01/26 Re: Why not make "if" *not* be a special form in Scheme?. Andrew Lentvorski
• 2008/01/26 Re: SICP Progress (Was Re: Section 1.1 Exercises (Responses Have Answers)) Brad Beyenhof
• 2008/01/26 RE: Why not make "if" *not* be a special form in Scheme?. Gabriel Sechan
• 2008/01/26 Re: Why not make "if" *not* be a special form in Scheme?. chris
• 2008/01/26 Re: Why not make "if" *not* be a special form in Scheme?. chris
• 2008/01/26 Re: Why not make "if" *not* be a special form in Scheme?. chris
• 2008/01/26 Re: tail recursion questions SJS
• 2008/01/26 Re: tail recursion questions chris
• 2008/01/26 Re: Why is the ugly "#f" Scheme's FALSE symbol rather than an empty list () ? chris
• 2008/01/26 Re: Why is the ugly "#f" Scheme's FALSE symbol rather than an empty list () ? chris
• 2008/01/26 SICP Progress (Was Re: Section 1.1 Exercises (Responses Have Answers)) Brad Beyenhof
• 2008/01/26 Re: tail recursion questions Wade Curry
• 2008/01/26 Re: Why not make "if" *not* be a special form in Scheme?. Christopher Smith
• 2008/01/26 Re: Why not make "if" *not* be a special form in Scheme?. Brad Beyenhof
• 2008/01/26 Re: Why not make "if" *not* be a special form in Scheme?. Darren New
• 2008/01/26 Re: Why does Scheme need both "cond-else" and "if" constructs? Darren New
• 2008/01/26 Re: Why does Scheme need both "cond-else" and "if" constructs? David Brown
• 2008/01/26 Re: Is return value of a Scheme "define" expression undefined? why? Andrew Lentvorski
• 2008/01/26 Re: Why not make "if" *not* be a special form in Scheme?. Andrew Lentvorski
• 2008/01/26 Re: Why does Scheme need both "cond-else" and "if" constructs? Andrew Lentvorski
• 2008/01/26 Re: Is return value of a Scheme "define" expression undefined? why? David Brown
• 2008/01/26 Re: Why not make "if" *not* be a special form in Scheme?. David Brown
• 2008/01/26 Re: Why is the ugly "#f" Scheme's FALSE symbol rather than an empty list () ? David Brown
• 2008/01/26 Re: Why does Scheme need both "cond-else" and "if" constructs? David Brown
• 2008/01/26 Re: Why is the ugly "#f" Scheme's FALSE symbol rather than an empty list () ? Christopher Smith
• 2008/01/26 Re: Is return value of a Scheme "define" expression undefined? why? Christopher Smith
• 2008/01/26 Re: Why does Scheme need both "cond-else" and "if" constructs? Christopher Smith
• 2008/01/26 Is return value of a Scheme "define" expression undefined? why? chris
• 2008/01/25 RE: Why not make "if" *not* be a special form in Scheme?. Gabriel Sechan
• 2008/01/25 Why not make "if" *not* be a special form in Scheme?. chris
• 2008/01/25 Why is the ugly "#f" Scheme's FALSE symbol rather than an empty list () ? chris
• 2008/01/25 Why does Scheme need both "cond-else" and "if" constructs? chris
• 2008/01/25 Re: Disappointed in historical baggage in Lisp - Lisp needs to be redone Christopher Smith
• 2008/01/25 Re: Disappointed in historical baggage in Lisp - Lisp needs to be redone Christopher Smith
• 2008/01/25 Re: Section 1.1 Exercises (Responses Have Answers) Mark Schoonover
• 2008/01/25 Re: Disappointed in historical baggage in Lisp - Lisp needs to be redone chris
• 2008/01/25 Re: Section 1.1 Exercises (Responses Have Answers) Brad Beyenhof
• 2008/01/25 Re: Section 1.1 Exercises (Responses Have Answers) Mark Schoonover
• 2008/01/25 Re: What is so special about recursion? Andrew Lentvorski
• 2008/01/25 Re: What is so special about recursion? Andrew Lentvorski
• 2008/01/25 Re: Disappointed in historical baggage in Lisp - Lisp needs to be redone Andrew Lentvorski
• 2008/01/25 Re: Disappointed in historical baggage in Lisp - Lisp needs to be redone Andrew Lentvorski
• 2008/01/25 Re: Disappointed in historical baggage in Lisp - Lisp needs to be redone Andrew Lentvorski
• 2008/01/25 Re: Disappointed in historical baggage in Lisp - Lisp needs to be redone Andrew Lentvorski
• 2008/01/25 Re: TSP (Was: Analog vs Digital) Christopher Smith
• 2008/01/25 TSP (Was: Analog vs Digital) SJS
• 2008/01/25 Re: Analog vs Digital (was Re: Is Scheme/Lisp somehow more "fundamental" than other languages?) David Brown
• 2008/01/25 Re: Disappointed in historical baggage in Lisp - Lisp needs to be redone Darren New
• 2008/01/25 Re: Analog vs Digital (was Re: Is Scheme/Lisp somehow more "fundamental" than other languages?) Darren New
• 2008/01/25 Re: Section 1.1 Exercises (Responses Have Answers) Brad Beyenhof
• 2008/01/25 Re: Section 1.1 Exercises (Responses Have Answers) Mark Schoonover
• 2008/01/25 Re: What is so special about recursion? SJS
• 2008/01/25 Re: Disappointed in historical baggage in Lisp - Lisp needs to be redone SJS
• 2008/01/25 RE: What is so special about recursion? Gabriel Sechan
• 2008/01/25 Re: Disappointed in historical baggage in Lisp - Lisp needs to be redone Christopher Smith
• 2008/01/25 RE: What is so special about recursion? Gabriel Sechan
• 2008/01/25 Re: Disappointed in historical baggage in Lisp - Lisp needs to be redone Tracy R Reed
• 2008/01/25 Re: Disappointed in historical baggage in Lisp - Lisp needs to be redone Chuck Esterbrook
• 2008/01/25 Re: Disappointed in historical baggage in Lisp - Lisp needs to be redone Chuck Esterbrook
• 2008/01/25 Re: What is so special about recursion? Christopher Smith
• 2008/01/25 Re: Disappointed in historical baggage in Lisp - Lisp needs to be redone Christopher Smith
• 2008/01/25 Re: Disappointed in historical baggage in Lisp - Lisp needs to be redone Chuck Esterbrook
• 2008/01/25 Re: Disappointed in historical baggage in Lisp - Lisp needs to be redone Christopher Smith
• 2008/01/25 Re: Disappointed in historical baggage in Lisp - Lisp needs to be redone Christopher Smith
• 2008/01/25 Re: Disappointed in historical baggage in Lisp - Lisp needs to be redone Christopher Smith
• 2008/01/25 Re: Disappointed in historical baggage in Lisp - Lisp needs to be redone SJS
• 2008/01/25 Re: What is so special about recursion? SJS
• 2008/01/25 RE: Disappointed in historical baggage in Lisp - Lisp needs to be redone Gabriel Sechan
• 2008/01/25 Re: Disappointed in historical baggage in Lisp - Lisp needs to be redone David Brown
• 2008/01/25 Re: Disappointed in historical baggage in Lisp - Lisp needs to be redone chris
• 2008/01/25 Re: Disappointed in historical baggage in Lisp - Lisp needs to be redone James G. Sack (jim)
• 2008/01/25 Re: Disappointed in historical baggage in Lisp - Lisp needs to be redone Chuck Esterbrook
• 2008/01/25 Re: Disappointed in historical baggage in Lisp - Lisp needs to be redone SJS
• 2008/01/25 Re: What is so special about recursion? chris
• 2008/01/25 Strings (Was: Disappointed in historical baggage in Lisp - Lisp needs to be redone) SJS
• 2008/01/25 Re: Disappointed in historical baggage in Lisp - Lisp needs to be redone David Brown
• 2008/01/25 Re: Disappointed in historical baggage in Lisp - Lisp needs to be redone Chuck Esterbrook
• 2008/01/25 Re: Disappointed in historical baggage in Lisp - Lisp needs to be redone Chuck Esterbrook
• 2008/01/25 Re: Disappointed in historical baggage in Lisp - Lisp needs to be redone David Brown
• 2008/01/25 Re: Disappointed in historical baggage in Lisp - Lisp needs to be redone chris
• 2008/01/25 Re: Disappointed in historical baggage in Lisp - Lisp needs to be redone David Brown
• 2008/01/25 RE: What is so special about recursion? Gabriel Sechan
• 2008/01/25 Re: Disappointed in historical baggage in Lisp - Lisp needs to be redone chris
• 2008/01/25 Re: Disappointed in historical baggage in Lisp - Lisp needs to be redone chris
• 2008/01/25 Re: What is so special about recursion? chris
• 2008/01/25 Re: What is so special about recursion? chris
• 2008/01/25 Re: What is so special about recursion? chris
• 2008/01/25 Re: Disappointed in historical baggage in Lisp - Lisp needs to be redone SJS
• 2008/01/25 Re: What is so special about recursion? Bob La Quey
• 2008/01/25 Re: Analog vs Digital (was Re: Is Scheme/Lisp somehow more "fundamental" than other languages?) SJS
• 2008/01/25 Re: Disappointed in historical baggage in Lisp - Lisp needs to be redone Christopher Smith
• 2008/01/25 Disappointed in historical baggage in Lisp - Lisp needs to be redone chris
• 2008/01/25 Re: What is so special about recursion? SJS
• 2008/01/25 Re: Is Scheme/Lisp somehow more "fundamental" than other languages? Christopher Smith
• 2008/01/25 Re: What is so special about recursion? David Brown
• 2008/01/25 Re: Analog vs Digital (was Re: Is Scheme/Lisp somehow more "fundamental" than other languages?) David Brown
• 2008/01/25 Re: What is so special about recursion? Christopher Smith
• 2008/01/25 Re: What is so special about recursion? SJS
• 2008/01/25 Re: What is so special about recursion? SJS
• 2008/01/25 Re: Analog vs Digital (was Re: Is Scheme/Lisp somehow more "fundamental" than other languages?) SJS
• 2008/01/25 Re: Analog vs Digital (was Re: Is Scheme/Lisp somehow more "fundamental" than other languages?) Tracy R Reed
• 2008/01/25 Re: What is so special about recursion? Christopher Smith
• 2008/01/25 What is so special about recursion? chris
• 2008/01/25 Re: Analog vs Digital (was Re: Is Scheme/Lisp somehow more "fundamental" than other languages?) David Brown
• 2008/01/25 Re: Analog vs Digital (was Re: Is Scheme/Lisp somehow more "fundamental" than other languages?) Darren New
• 2008/01/25 Re: Analog vs Digital (was Re: Is Scheme/Lisp somehow more "fundamental" than other languages?) Andrew Lentvorski
• 2008/01/24 Re: Analog vs Digital (was Re: Is Scheme/Lisp somehow more "fundamental" than other languages?) chris
• 2008/01/24 Re: Analog vs Digital (was Re: Is Scheme/Lisp somehow more "fundamental" than other languages?) David Brown
• 2008/01/24 Re: Analog vs Digital (was Re: Is Scheme/Lisp somehow more "fundamental" than other languages?) Darren New
• 2008/01/24 Re: Analog vs Digital (was Re: Is Scheme/Lisp somehow more "fundamental" than other languages?) Bob La Quey
• 2008/01/24 Re: Analog vs Digital (was Re: Is Scheme/Lisp somehow more "fundamental" than other languages?) Darren New
• 2008/01/24 Re: Analog vs Digital (was Re: Is Scheme/Lisp somehow more "fundamental" than other languages?) Darren New
• 2008/01/24 Re: Analog vs Digital (was Re: Is Scheme/Lisp somehow more "fundamental" than other languages?) SJS
• 2008/01/24 Re: Analog vs Digital (was Re: Is Scheme/Lisp somehow more "fundamental" than other languages?) Darren New
• 2008/01/24 Re: Analog vs Digital (was Re: Is Scheme/Lisp somehow more "fundamental" than other languages?) Darren New
• 2008/01/24 Re: What's difference between Lambda Calculus and Lisp/Scheme? chris
• 2008/01/24 Re: Section 1.1 Exercises (Responses Have Answers) David Brown
• 2008/01/24 Re: Analog vs Digital (was Re: Is Scheme/Lisp somehow more "fundamental" than other languages?) David Brown
• 2008/01/24 RE: Analog vs Digital (was Re: Is Scheme/Lisp somehow more "fundamental" than other languages?) Gabriel Sechan
• 2008/01/24 Re: Section 1.1 Exercises (Responses Have Answers) Brad Beyenhof
• 2008/01/24 Re: Analog vs Digital (was Re: Is Scheme/Lisp somehow more "fundamental" than other languages?) Ralph Shumaker
• 2008/01/24 Re: Analog vs Digital (was Re: Is Scheme/Lisp somehow more "fundamental" than other languages?) Andrew Lentvorski
• 2008/01/24 Re: What's difference between Lambda Calculus and Lisp/Scheme? David Brown
• 2008/01/24 Re: In Scheme does abstraction = variable = symbol ?? David Brown
• 2008/01/24 Re: What's difference between Lambda Calculus and Lisp/Scheme? chris
• 2008/01/24 Re: tail recursion questions Tom Gal
• 2008/01/24 Re: Section 1.1 Exercises (Responses Have Answers) David Brown
• 2008/01/24 Re: What's difference between Lambda Calculus and Lisp/Scheme? Christopher Smith
• 2008/01/24 What's difference between Lambda Calculus and Lisp/Scheme? chris
• 2008/01/24 Re: tail recursion questions David Brown
• 2008/01/24 Re: Section 1.1 Exercises (Responses Have Answers) Mark Schoonover
• 2008/01/24 Re: tail recursion questions chris
• 2008/01/24 Re: Section 1.1 Exercises (Responses Have Answers) Brad Beyenhof
• 2008/01/24 Re: tail recursion questions chris
• 2008/01/24 Re: tail recursion questions James G. Sack (jim)
• 2008/01/24 Re: tail recursion questions chris
• 2008/01/24 Re: tail recursion questions SJS
• 2008/01/24 Re: tail recursion questions chris
• 2008/01/24 Re: In Scheme does abstraction = variable = symbol ?? chris
• 2008/01/24 Re: Analog vs Digital (was Re: Is Scheme/Lisp somehow more "fundamental" than other languages?) James G. Sack (jim)
• 2008/01/24 Re: Section 1.1 Exercises (Responses Have Answers) Brad Beyenhof
• 2008/01/24 Re: tail recursion questions David Brown
• 2008/01/24 Re: tail recursion questions Tom Gal
• 2008/01/24 Re: Analog vs Digital (was Re: Is Scheme/Lisp somehow more "fundamental" than other languages?) Tom Gal
• 2008/01/24 Re: tail recursion questions David Brown
• 2008/01/24 Re: Analog vs Digital (was Re: Is Scheme/Lisp somehow more "fundamental" than other languages?) David Brown
• 2008/01/24 Re: Analog vs Digital (was Re: Is Scheme/Lisp somehow more "fundamental" than other languages?) David Brown
• 2008/01/24 Re: Section 1.1 Exercises (Responses Have Answers) David Brown
• 2008/01/24 Re: Analog vs Digital (was Re: Is Scheme/Lisp somehow more "fundamental" than other languages?) David Brown

• Earlier messages
• Later messages