merits of Lisp vs Python
jayessay
nospam at foo.com
Mon Dec 18 13:04:36 EST 2006
More information about the Python-list mailing list
Mon Dec 18 13:04:36 EST 2006
- Previous message (by thread): merits of Lisp vs Python
- Next message (by thread): merits of Lisp vs Python
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Paul Rubin <http://phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid> writes: > xscottg at gmail.com writes: > > I should assume you meant Common Lisp, but there isn't really any > > reason you couldn't > > > > (poke destination (peek source)) > > That breaks the reliability of GC. I'd say you're no longer writing > in Lisp if you use something like that. Please note: GC is not part of CL's definition. It is likely not part of any Lisp's definition (for reasons that should be obvious), and for the same reasons likely not part of any language's definition. So, your point here is actually a category error... /Jon -- 'j' - a n t h o n y at romeo/charley/november com
- Previous message (by thread): merits of Lisp vs Python
- Next message (by thread): merits of Lisp vs Python
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the Python-list mailing list