From ... From: Erik Naggum Subject: Re: source access vs dynamism Date: 1999/09/03 Message-ID: <3145350277035952@naggum.no>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 520586293 References: <3144404199547949@naggum.no> <37C17E00.D039AEBD@elwood.com> <_Mfw3.358$m84.6201@burlma1-snr2> <3144558626572658@naggum.no> <3144569678548813@naggum.no> <3144685738025120@naggum.no> <86hflm6whz.fsf@knotwell.ix.netcom.com> <3144735996390160@naggum.no> <87so55z8m1.fsf@ZhengHe.augustin.thierry> <87lnavzbqq.fsf@ZhengHe.augustin.thierry> mail-copies-to: never X-Complaints-To: usenet@news.eunet.no X-Trace: oslo-nntp.eunet.no 936361479 24335 193.71.66.49 (3 Sep 1999 12:24:39 GMT) Organization: Naggum Software; +47 8800 8879; +1 510 435 8604; http://www.naggum.no NNTP-Posting-Date: 3 Sep 1999 12:24:39 GMT Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp * 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. #:Erik -- save the children: just say NO to sex with pro-lifers