In article <··········@belfort.daimi.aau.dk> ·····@daimi.aau.dk (Ole Villumsen) writes:
>rodrigo vanegas <··@cs.brown.edu> writes:
>
>>In article <··········@nz12.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de>, ······@ma2s2.mathematik.uni-karlsruhe.de (Bruno Haible) writes:
>
>>> 4. PROGN, LET, Lisp closures, list objects, defstruct objects, CLOS instances
>>> all correspond to "pattern"s.
>
>>So what are these "patterns" anyway? It sounds as if they are very
>>close if not identical to lisp closures. After all, can't each of the
>>above lisp stuff can be implemented as sugar for closures.
>
>I've posted a response to comp.lang.beta.
>I can also mail it to anyone interested.
This annoys me big time. Why not post the reply to the newsgroups
that contained the original article?