Ken Tilton wrote:
> No wonder the GPL has gone nowhere.
Bwaahahahaha. Keep smokin' that crack, there.
> Freely. RMS reasonably wanted that
> add-42 not get co-opted, but that in no way necessitated the land grab
> that is GPL.
You (and probably KMP) are presuming the validity of copyright mon
Thomas Bellman wrote:
> I seem to recall that EMACS, the old TECO version on TOPS-20 and
> ITS, only supported two windows ("panes" in Twisted's words). So
> it's not *completely* false, just extremely outdated.
>
>
Well, that's going back a bit. I somehow doubt he was using that, but I
guess
Timofei Shatrov wrote:
> What an idiot. At least get yourt facts straight before posting such
> bullshit.
I think at this stage it's quite reasonable to assume he's trolling, and
recycling old trolls, too. Certainly looks like someone very like him
used to haunt rec.games.roguelike.development as
Bjorn Borud wrote:
> [Falcolas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]
> |
> | I guess ultimately I'm trying to argue the point that just because a
> | tool was written with a GUI or on Windows does not automatically
> | make it any less a productive tool than a text based terminal tool.
> | Even in windows, you ca
Twisted wrote:
> If I sit down at a windows text editor (or
> even kwrite or similar) I can just focus on the job. Faced with emacs
> or most other text-mode editors (but not MS-DOS Edit, interestingly)
> the editor keeps intruding on my focus. Oops.
>
"emacs or most other text-mode editors" so
Twisted wrote:
> You end up having to memorize the help, because *you can't
> have arbitrary parts of the help and your document open side by side
> and be working on the document*.
WTF? Of course you can. http://oldr.net/emacs_two_frames.png
> I don't know why people keep harping about what ve
Twisted wrote:
> Of course not. It's too hard to get started using it, so I gave up on
> it years ago.
So wtf makes you think you're remotely qualified to comment about
emacs as it stands today? Idiot.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
William James wrote:
> Actually, it's 'among', not 'amongst', except to those who are
> lisping, degenerate pansies.
>
lisping: "amongst" => "amongthpt" ?
"amongst" is a fairly common british english variant of "among".
> Some pronunciations and usages "froze" when they reached the
> Americ
Actually, in English, "parenthesis" means the bit in between the
brackets.
The various kinds of brackets (amongst other punctuation marks
including, in most english texts, commas) *demarcate* parentheses.
Wikipedia's "Parenthesis (rhetoric)" is, at time of writing, the correct
British English def
Paul Rubin wrote:
> Forth was always unreadable to me but I never did much. I thought its
> aficionados were silly. Yes if you have a complicated math expression
> in Lisp, you have to sit there for a moment rearranging it in infix in
> your mind to figure out what it says. The point is that s
James Graves wrote:
>
> But coverage in this area (compiled CL) is a bit thin, I'll admit.
>
But who really cares? After all, there are the mature commercial
proprietary lisp compilers for those people who insist on using
closedware OSes, and they've already proven they're willing to use
close
11 matches
Mail list logo
