Subject: Re: Why is Scheme not a Lisp? From: Erik Naggum <email@example.com> Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 12:29:54 GMT Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp Message-ID: <firstname.lastname@example.org> * Thomas Bushnell, BSG | No, the point (which, I labor to repeat, was not mine, and is one that | CL programmers seem to frequently lament) is that not everything that | fits the *syntax* of a variable name can be used as one. What on earth are you you talking about? Is it a "problem" that a symbol that has been pervasively declared special cannot be lexically bound, too? Do you want _syntax_ to distinguish specials and contants? Or what? | It's a minor design wart, that's all. You have clearly not understand what a constant variable is. You probably have not even understood special binding, either. How many warts does Scheme have from an ML point of view? Would that be a fair way to argue about language warts, or would you prefer to speak about language Scheme warts relative to Scheme's design? If so, why on earth are you talking about warts in Common Lisp relative to Scheme's design goals? With all this talk about eval-time environments, you still do not seem to manage the concept of a context in human communication. /// -- In a fight against something, the fight has value, victory has none. In a fight for something, the fight is a loss, victory merely relief.