From ... From: Erik Naggum Subject: Re: What is the most "Elegant" Language? Date: 1997/10/16 Message-ID: <3086024401123307@naggum.no>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 281107963 References: <01bcc53d$2d9ef3c0$2f2d11cb@pc1> <342A114D.35C2953D@artelecom.ru> <60r8mf$7m3@omega.gmd.de> <60qfdr$q1a$1@latte.cafe.net> <34314122.1F5A68A8@nospan.netright.com> <343B13ED.FE9234D5@pobox.com> <343B8613.3C75@ici.net> <343C3CB9.456E5795@camtech.net.au> <61vk67$ssh$9@beta.qmw.ac.uk> <87ra9ndrew.fsf@firetrap.csres.utexas.edu> <3085946866762678@naggum.no> <8767qymrda.fsf@firetrap.csres.utexas.edu> mail-copies-to: never Organization: Naggum Software; +47 8800 8879; http://www.naggum.no Newsgroups: comp.lang.c,comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.lisp,comp.lang.misc,comp.lang.prolog,comp.lang.scheme * Bill Gribble | Although format and loop are part of the "library" and not the "syntax" | of Common LISP (well, loop is syntax but I'll pretend), they are a part | of the language, and if you embrace Common LISP you must also embrace | format and loop. well, this is where we will have to agree to disagree. you don't _have_ to know and use `format' and `loop' to embrace Common Lisp as a programmer, but you _have_ to know about lambda lists, macros, `setf', etc. I think the former are a matter of practical elegance in the code, and the latter a matter of elegant language design. other than this point, we're in harmony. #\Erik -- if you think this year is "97", _you_ are not "year 2000 compliant". see http://www.naggum.no/emacs/ for Emacs-20-related material.