kplug-lpsg  

Messages by Thread

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

• Earlier messages
• Later messages