On Dec 10, 1:28 pm, Randall R Schulz <rsch...@sonic.net> wrote: > There seems to be a bit of an oversight.
I recall at least one other article on (Common) Lisp in Dr. Dobb's Journal which was disastrously poorly written (misleading, outdated, irrelevant information, even though the article was "pro-Lisp"). It's not clear to me whether it's worthwhile to try to improve the articles by comments, because the overall quality is so low. (I think I tried but it didn't get anywhere.) mfh --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
