[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
## Re: "Misunderstanding of the lambda calculus"

**From**: |
David Kastrup |

**Subject**: |
Re: "Misunderstanding of the lambda calculus" |

**Date**: |
Sun, 29 Jan 2006 19:32:23 +0100 |

**User-agent**: |
Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.50 (gnu/linux) |

Jonathan Yavner <address@hidden> writes:
>*> This may amuse some of the readers of this mailing list. While*
>*> browsing the Wikipedia entry on lambda calculus, I saw that some wit*
>*> had written:*
>*> More archaic Lisps, such as Emacs Lisp, still use dynamic binding,*
>*> and so are not based on the lambda calculus. Rather, they are*
>*> based on the syntax of the lambda calculus, together with a*
>*> misunderstanding of the notion of binding and substitution in the*
>*> lambda calculus. *
>
>* Okay, I'll bite. I slapped an {{NPOV}} sticker on that section*
>* ("failure to maintain neutral point of view"). Would anyone who*
>* cares about such things please edit my complaint for correctness?*
Uh, "archaic" and "alive" is not a contradiction.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

**"Misunderstanding of the lambda calculus"**, *Chong Yidong*, `2006/01/29`
**Re: "Misunderstanding of the lambda calculus"**, *Jonathan Yavner*, `2006/01/29`
**Re: "Misunderstanding of the lambda calculus"**,
*David Kastrup* **<=**
**Re: "Misunderstanding of the lambda calculus"**, *Richard M. Stallman*, `2006/01/30`
**Re: "Misunderstanding of the lambda calculus"**, *David Kastrup*, `2006/01/30`
**Re: "Misunderstanding of the lambda calculus"**, *Richard M. Stallman*, `2006/01/31`
**Re: "Misunderstanding of the lambda calculus"**, *Kevin Rodgers*, `2006/01/31`
**Re: "Misunderstanding of the lambda calculus"**, *Stefan Monnier*, `2006/01/31`
**Re: "Misunderstanding of the lambda calculus"**, *David Kastrup*, `2006/01/31`