Subject: Re: A simple quesion... From: Erik Naggum <email@example.com> Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 09:55:55 GMT Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp Message-ID: <firstname.lastname@example.org> * Kaz Kylheku | What aspects of Scheme are defined at the character level, whose Lisp | counterparts are not defined at that level? Like its Algol heritage, Scheme has been (Kent indicates that they may have fixed this) defined such that it can be processed with a regular lexer that does not operate with lists of Scheme objects. It is quite interesting to watch how languages gain complexity when their syntaxes are defined at the character level that reaches far into the higher-level constructs and how they gain it when their syntaxes are defined as the parsed representation of the lowest-level objects and the higher-level constructs of the language is instead defined in terms of those objects. /// -- The United Nations before and after the leadership of Kofi Annan are two very different organizations. The "before" United Nations did not deserve much credit and certainly not a Nobel peace prize. The "after" United Nations equally certainly does. I applaud the Nobel committee's choice.