From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/18173 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.general Subject: Re: Pterodactyl Gnus v0.39 is released Date: 26 Oct 1998 01:26:14 +0100 Sender: owner-ding@hpc.uh.edu Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: coloc-standby.netfonds.no X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1035156744 4783 80.91.224.250 (20 Oct 2002 23:32:24 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2002 23:32:24 +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 UAA06610 for ; Sun, 25 Oct 1998 20:06:00 -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 TAB27082; Sun, 25 Oct 1998 19:05:47 -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 19:05:19 -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 TAA13692 for ; Sun, 25 Oct 1998 19:05:10 -0600 (CST) Original-Received: from sparky.gnus.org (ppp119.uio.no [129.240.240.124]) by sclp3.sclp.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id UAA06557 for ; Sun, 25 Oct 1998 20:05:05 -0500 (EST) Original-Received: (from larsi@localhost) by sparky.gnus.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id CAA00871; Mon, 26 Oct 1998 02:04:59 +0100 Mail-Copies-To: never X-Now-Reading: Amy Hempel's _Reasons to Live_ X-Now-Playing: Stereolab's _Aluminium Tunes [Switched On 3] (cd2)_: "The Incredible He Woman" Original-To: ding@gnus.org In-Reply-To: Hrvoje Niksic's message of "26 Oct 1998 00:59:04 +0100" User-Agent: Gnus/5.070041 (Pterodactyl Gnus v0.41) Emacs/20.3 X-Face: &w!^oO~dS|}-P0~ge{$c!h\ writes: > But these things are not the point. The point is that the crucial > difference (IMHO) is whether the code is interpreted or compiled, not > how it is compiled. I agree totally. And byte-compiled code is interpreted, so the important distinction here is Lisp/byte-code on the one hand, and native code on the other. :-) > 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. -- (domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.) larsi@gnus.org * Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen