Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site hcrvx1.UUCP
Path: utzoo!hcradm!hcrvx1!hugh
From: hugh@hcrvx1.UUCP (Hugh Redelmeier)
Newsgroups: net.lang.lisp
Subject: Re: Against the Tide of Common LISP
Message-ID: <1373@hcrvx1.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 26-Jun-86 10:21:51 EDT
Article-I.D.: hcrvx1.1373
Posted: Thu Jun 26 10:21:51 1986
Date-Received: Fri, 27-Jun-86 02:21:25 EDT
References: <1311@well.UUCP> <3827@utah-cs.UUCP> <5194@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU> <313@hplabsc.UUCP>
Reply-To: hugh@hcrvx1.UUCP (Hugh Redelmeier)
Organization: Human Computing Resources, Toronto
Lines: 8
Keywords: static binding, dynamic binding
Summary: 

In article <313@hplabsc.UUCP> kempf@hplabsc.UUCP (Jim Kempf) writes:
>What really upset me about CLtL is that the quality of the book binding
>was so bad. I have had my book for about a year and a half, use it
>constantly, and it has already fallen apart.

Sounds like DEC uses dynamic binding (it changes over time).  Lexical
is *much* more appropriate for Common Lisp.  Dynamic binding should
be an option (cheaper in paperback).