From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/18175 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Hrvoje Niksic Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.general Subject: Re: Pterodactyl Gnus v0.39 is released Date: 26 Oct 1998 02:17:13 +0100 Sender: owner-ding@hpc.uh.edu Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: coloc-standby.netfonds.no X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1035156745 4794 80.91.224.250 (20 Oct 2002 23:32:25 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2002 23:32:25 +0000 (UTC) Return-Path: Original-Received: from fisher.math.uh.edu (fisher.math.uh.edu [129.7.128.35]) by sclp3.sclp.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id UAA07060 for ; Sun, 25 Oct 1998 20:18:10 -0500 (EST) Original-Received: from sina.hpc.uh.edu (lists@Sina.HPC.UH.EDU [129.7.3.5]) by fisher.math.uh.edu (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id TAB27155; Sun, 25 Oct 1998 19:17:58 -0600 (CST) Original-Received: by sina.hpc.uh.edu (TLB v0.09a (1.20 tibbs 1996/10/09 22:03:07)); Sun, 25 Oct 1998 19:17:39 -0600 (CST) Original-Received: from sclp3.sclp.com (root@sclp3.sclp.com [209.195.19.139]) by sina.hpc.uh.edu (8.7.3/8.7.3) with ESMTP id TAA13850 for ; Sun, 25 Oct 1998 19:17:30 -0600 (CST) Original-Received: from jagor.srce.hr (hniksic@jagor.srce.hr [161.53.2.130]) by sclp3.sclp.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id UAA07036 for ; Sun, 25 Oct 1998 20:17:27 -0500 (EST) Original-Received: (from hniksic@localhost) by jagor.srce.hr (8.9.0/8.9.0) id CAA21063; Mon, 26 Oct 1998 02:17:13 +0100 (MET) Original-To: ding@gnus.org X-Attribution: Hrvoje X-Face: &{dT~)Pu6V<0y?>3p$;@vh\`C7xB~A0T-J%Og)J,@-1%q6Q+, gs<-9M#&`I8cJp2b1{vPE|~+JE+gx;a7%BG{}nY^ehK1"q#rG O,Rn1A_Cy%t]V=Brv7h writes: > > I don't buy the notion that a byte-compiled function is somehow > > "less compiled" because it's not compiled to native code. > > Well -- it *is* less compiled. > > > So, the moment XEmacs developers decided to abstract away a "compiled > > function" object, I believe they chose a good name for the accessor > > functions. > > And to me it's a nice example of an abstraction that obscures what > the reality is. We are clearly arguing taste here, because I cannot fathom how the name `compiled-function-p' obscures reality. To me byte-compilation is just a form of compilation. But I'm beginning to repeat myself, so I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this. Or something. -- Hrvoje Niksic | Student at FER Zagreb, Croatia --------------------------------+-------------------------------- If we get involved in a nuclear war, will the electromagnetic pulses from exploding bombs damage my videotapes?