Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!think!snorkelwacker!bloom-beacon!eru!luth!sunic!mcsun!ukc!edcastle!aiai!jeff
From: jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.prolog
Subject: Re: More fun with WG17
Message-ID: <1494@skye.ed.ac.uk>
Date: 26 Dec 89 19:16:06 GMT
References: <2609@munnari.oz.au> <696@sce.carleton.ca> <2643@munnari.oz.au> <1355@gould.doc.ic.ac.uk> <2717@munnari.oz.au> <1359@gould.doc.ic.ac.uk>
Reply-To: jeff@aiai.UUCP (Jeff Dalton)
Organization: AIAI, University of Edinburgh, Scotland
Lines: 8

In article <1359@gould.doc.ic.ac.uk> cdsm@doc.ic.ac.uk (Chris Moss) writes:
>Thus the portmanteau approach of  Common Lisp  would have  been a more
>appropriate model than "do it the Edinburgh way".

You still seem to think Common Lisp solved all conflicts about
how to do X by including all ways to do X.  That is simply not
true.  Common Lisp is closer to "do it the MIT way" than you
seem to think.