Off topic question:

Can somebody explain to me whether there is a semantic difference between "..." and ".." above? I find this a baffling construction, moreso because both happen within the span of two words, but at the same time it seems unimaginable that it is an unintentional omission, because the cognitive load of typing out "..." is a one-time retrieval + motor command and should be automatized.

On the other hand, if the omission is a mistake then it means that it isn't automatized and there should be a reason for that as well. It is also possible that it is actually a formal punctuation mark in another language, which leads to comparable and competing access times with "...", in which case I have no knowledge.

If the ".." has indeed acquired actual, independent semantic significance it must be recent and I cannot find it; what would it be?

I read it as a trailing thought. Keyboards don't give us much expressiveness, but we make do. :P

I see. Is this the commonly-accepted interpretation? What does the normal ellipsis mean then? I use it as a trailing thought as well -- or, is it trailing speech?

    spoken: now... [pause]
    spoken: lisp .. [thought...?]
    thought: if only

?

wow. I never thought a comment of mine would be tokenized.

But, I guess your parsing was spot on

...

[Edit: I'm an idiot. This is a "batteries included" Haskell. If only Lisp, indeed]

CLISP + Emacs and slime is pretty much universal, almost to a fault.

Wait, who uses CLISP? Most Lisp applications included with my OS use GCL, and I personally use SBCL. It also seems like most libraries support SBCL, sometimes exclusively.

.. on win32?

I use sbcl on win32 and it does most things almost right. Just not all. At least CLISP doesn't half-run them.