I am somewhat concerned with the recent increase in volume on
comp.lang.lisp. It is getting difficult to keep up.
To me it seems like the time has come to consider splitting up
comp.lang.lisp, by creating a new group: comp.lang.lisp.offtopic.
On second thoughts: it may not absorb that much volume from the main
group, since it could be hard to think of off-topic subjects that
would not be on-topic in an off-topic newsgroup.
;-)
---------------------------+--------------------------------------------------
Christian Lynbech | Ericsson Telebit A/S
Fax: +45 8628 8186 | Fabrikvej 11, DK-8260 Viby J
Phone: +45 8628 8177 + 28 | email: ···@tbit.dk --- URL: http://www.tbit.dk
---------------------------+--------------------------------------------------
Hit the philistines three times over the head with the Elisp reference manual.
- ·······@hal.com (Michael A. Petonic)
In article <··············@chl.tbit.dk>, Christian Lynbech <···@tbit.dk> wrote:
> To me it seems like the time has come to consider splitting up
> comp.lang.lisp, by creating a new group: comp.lang.lisp.offtopic.
Can't wait to go back to discuss new exciting variations of
the LET syntax/semantics (LET with non-determinism "MAY-LET", ...).
······@lavielle.com (Rainer Joswig) writes:
> Can't wait to go back to discuss new exciting variations of
> the LET syntax/semantics (LET with non-determinism "MAY-LET", ...).
And SHALL-LET for binding special variables without having to declare them.
* Christian Lynbech <···@tbit.dk>
| I am somewhat concerned with the recent increase in volume on
| comp.lang.lisp. It is getting difficult to keep up.
congratulations! you just contributed to the increase.
people with good newsreaders don't have your problem.
coping is a simple matter of programming.
#:Erik
--
(defun pringles (chips)
(loop (pop chips)))
Are you serious, Christian? I think there might be some merit in having
alt.lisp.advocacy, or whatever the appropriate name is, as well as
perhaps some sort of alt.lisp.community.
Unfortunately, a lot of stuff that perhaps should be in the already
existing comp.lang.clos gets asked and answered here. Similarly for
comp.std.lisp and comp.org.lisp-users. I interpret (oops, better say
"evaluate") this as evidence that we can't really support a top-level
separation of the different threads. I think its a shame, because I
would prefer that separation.
Erik Naggum wrote:
>
> * Christian Lynbech <···@tbit.dk>
> | I am somewhat concerned with the recent increase in volume on
> | comp.lang.lisp. It is getting difficult to keep up.
>
> congratulations! you just contributed to the increase.
>
> people with good newsreaders don't have your problem.
> coping is a simple matter of programming.
>
> #:Erik
From: Christian Lynbech
Subject: Re: Need to split comp.lang.lisp?
Date:
Message-ID: <ofemh4dps1.fsf@chl.tbit.dk>
>>>>> "Howard" == Howard R Stearns <······@citydesktopinc.com> writes:
Howard> Are you serious, Christian?
No. I guess I should have put in more smileys.
---------------------------+--------------------------------------------------
Christian Lynbech | Ericsson Telebit A/S
Fax: +45 8628 8186 | Fabrikvej 11, DK-8260 Viby J
Phone: +45 8628 8177 + 28 | email: ···@tbit.dk --- URL: http://www.tbit.dk
---------------------------+--------------------------------------------------
Hit the philistines three times over the head with the Elisp reference manual.
- ·······@hal.com (Michael A. Petonic)