Subject: Re: source access vs dynamism
From: Erik Naggum <>
Date: 1999/09/03
Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp
Message-ID: <>

* William Tanksley
| You're wrong.  Every word is Lisp, unless it's a special form, is
| identifiable as a member of a library.  There are other parts of Lisp
| which aren't (such as syntax).

  it is this distinction that is counter-productive to understand Lisp.

| >Sure - but why is it a pro? Could also be a "Cons".
| Grin.  But too many conses slows the processing.
| But that doesn't stop it from being a "pro".

  wow!  I think we found the reason for Lisp's problems in gaining wider
  popularity and acceptance.  the first people see when they start to learn
  about Lisp are all the cons!  and how to make Lisp more popular?  simple!
  lists should simply be made up of pro cells.  problem solved.  ;)

| Yes -- nearly the entire book "On Lisp" is about them.  Compare Scheme.

  Scheme people see problems in Common Lisp macros because they decided
  against two namespaces, and therefore pollute the function namespace much
  more readily than Common Lisp people do, which means that a macro could
  expand into code that makes a function into a variable in Scheme.  this
  is clearly horrible, so _they_ need hygienic macros.  CL doesn't, because
  the core problem has been fixed.

  save the children: just say NO to sex with pro-lifers