[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: is requiring cl bad?

From: Pascal J. Bourguignon
Subject: Re: is requiring cl bad?
Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2012 11:26:10 +0100
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.2 (gnu/linux)

Xue Fuqiao <address@hidden> writes:

> On Sun, 16 Dec 2012 10:29:30 +0100
> Ivan Kanis <address@hidden> wrote:
>> I was under the impression that requiring cl was bad (TM). I can't
>> remember why. Is it still so?
> You can see these pages:
> http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2003-08/msg00436.html
> http://www.gnu.org/gnu/rms-lisp.html
> http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2007-09/msg01472.html
> BTW, what does "TM" mean(English is not my native language)?

It should be written as: ™  meaning Trade Mark, meaning "cl is bad" is a
registered trade mark.  No it's not, but it's as famous as if it was.

__Pascal Bourguignon__                     http://www.informatimago.com/
A bad day in () is better than a good day in {}.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]