[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Nothing to do with Common Lisp
I'm getting tired of having some mailer kicking back this kind of crap
to me. First of all, the header that used to be my message has been
completely parsed out of existence. Second of all, I have no idea if I
can reply to MAILER-DAEMON or POSTMASTER and frankly I'm not about to
try. My only hope is that this is a 4.1 Unix system doing this, because
it was promised to me that 'the 4.2 mail system will fix everything.'
(I know that isn't true because our 4.2 still violates half of the
standard protocols.) Will somebody please either tell the losers to fix
their mailers or get them out of the distribution. Sorry to bother
everybody, but I don't know a better place for this gripe.
==============================
Received: from SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA by SCRC-QUABBIN.ARPA via CHAOS with CHAOS-MAIL id 241340; Sun 2-Feb-86 21:08:39-EST
Received: from SU-AI.ARPA by SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA via INTERNET with SMTP id 407543; 2 Feb 86 21:09:51-EST
Received: from CCA-UNIX.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 2 Feb 86 18:10:54 PST
Received: by CCA-UNIX.ARPA (4.12/4.7)
id AA12595; Fri, 31 Jan 86 22:24:08 est
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 86 22:24:08 est
From: ima!inmet!MAILER-DAEMON%cca-unix.arpa@cca-unix.arpa
Message-Id: <8602010324.AA12595@CCA-UNIX.ARPA>
Sender: inmet!MAILER-DAEMON%cca-unix.arpa@cca-unix.arpa
Subject: Returned mail: Unable to deliver mail
To: @SU-AI.ARPA.DCP@SCRC.ARPA
Received: by inmet.uucp (4.12/inmet)
id AA26477; Fri, 31 Jan 86 08:23:00 est
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 86 08:23:00 est
Message-Id: <8601311323.AA26477@inmet.uucp>
----- Transcript of session follows -----
554 ima!cca!@SU-AI.ARPA:DCP@SCRC... Unbalanced '>'
554 ima!cca!@SU-AI.ARPA:DCP@SCRC... Unbalanced '<'
554 ima!cca!@SU-AI.ARPA:DCP@SCRC... Unbalanced '>'
554 ima!cca!@SU-AI.ARPA:DCP@SCRC... Unbalanced '<'
554 ima!cca!@SU-AI.ARPA:DCP@SCRC... Unbalanced '>'
554 ima!cca!@SU-AI.ARPA:DCP@SCRC... Unbalanced '<'
554 norman... Unbalanced '>': Bad file number
554 norman... Unbalanced '>': Bad file number
554 norman... Unbalanced '<': Bad file number
554 norman... Unbalanced '<': Bad file number
554 norman... Unbalanced '>': Bad file number
554 norman... Unbalanced '>': Bad file number
554 norman... Unbalanced '<': Bad file number
554 norman... Unbalanced '<': Bad file number
554 norman... Unbalanced '>': Bad file number
554 norman... Unbalanced '>': Bad file number
554 norman... Unbalanced '<': Bad file number
554 norman... Unbalanced '<': Bad file number
----- Unsent message follows -----
Received: by inmet.uucp (4.12/inmet)
id AA26475; Fri, 31 Jan 86 08:23:00 est
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 86 08:23:00 est
Message-Id: <8601311323.AA26475@inmet.uucp>
From: David C. Plummer <cca!DCP@SCRC-QUABBIN.ARPA> <*SU-AI.ARPA:DCP*SCRC@cca.UUCP>
Subject: Defun inside Let
In-Reply-To: <RAM.12179485813.BABYL@C.CS.CMU.EDU>, <8601302137.AA04616@escargot.UUCP>
To: cca!Rob.cca!MacLachlan.cca!Earl.cca!Killian.cca!David.cca!C.cca!Plummer
To: c.cs.cmu.edu>!, <RAM <mips!escargot.earl@SU-GLACIER.ARPA>
To: scrc-quabbin.arpa>!, <DCP su-ai.arpa!common-lisp
Cc: cca!Scott cca!E. cca!Fahlman c.cs.cmu.edu>!, <Fahlman
Received: from SU-AI.ARPA (su-ai.arpa.ARPA) by CCA-UNIX.ARPA (4.12/4.7)
id AA20764; Thu, 30 Jan 86 21:45:07 est
Received: from SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA by SU-AI.ARPA with TCP; 30 Jan 86 17:59:15 PST
Received: from NEPONSET.SCRC.Symbolics.COM by SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA via CHAOS with CHAOS-MAIL id 405743; Thu 30-Jan-86 20:57:21-EST
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 86 21:03 EST
Message-Id: <860130210351.3.DCP@NEPONSET.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 1986 20:13 EST
From: Rob MacLachlan <RAM@C.CS.CMU.EDU>
I don't have answers for any of those. My personal feeling is
that DEFUN that requires a non-null lexical environment, such as
created by LET, is a timebomb ticking quickly.
I think many of the cited problems are contingent in the assumption
that COMPILE lets you do everything you want to do. You are bothered
mostly by programming environment issues which Common Lisp mostly
doesn't address.
That's right, I am bothered by programming environment. That isn't
necessarily an issue to the people who use the code, but it sure is an
issue to those that write it and have to debug it. [Actually, the users
never come into it; for all they know the program they are running is
written in Ada. This is only an issue for developers.] I agree it is
probably not in CL's domain to address these issues, but it shouldn't
prohibit it. Maybe another example?
(let ((counter 0))
(defun hairy-function-counter ()
counter)
(defun hairy-function (arg1 ...)
(incf counter)
...big-and-hairy-compuation-bound-to-get-
called-a-lot-and-have-bugs-that-need-fixing...))
Why, during my debugging cycle, should I be forced to have the counter
reset to 0 each time I need to change hairy-function?
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 86 13:37:13 pst
From: mips!escargot.earl@glacier (Earl Killian)
No one has suggested that making DEFUN inside of LET not work is the
right thing (people have suggested that it may not be required by the
current wording of the Common Lisp manual). If someone feels that
DEFUN inside of LET shouldn't work, they ought to speak up!
I have reservations.