From ... Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!colt.net!deine.net!hamster.europeonline.net!newsfeed.europeonline.net!nslave.kpnqwest.net!nloc.kpnqwest.net!nmaster.kpnqwest.net!nreader3.kpnqwest.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp Subject: Re: What should S-expression based languages be called? (was: Re: Why is Scheme not a Lisp?) References: <3c91101b.50489765@nntp.interaccess.com> Mail-Copies-To: never From: Erik Naggum Message-ID: <3225042418121611@naggum.net> Organization: Naggum Software, Oslo, Norway Lines: 12 User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 21:06:46 GMT X-Complaints-To: newsmaster@KPNQwest.no X-Trace: nreader3.kpnqwest.net 1016053606 193.71.199.50 (Wed, 13 Mar 2002 22:06:46 MET) NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 22:06:46 MET Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.lisp:28802 * Erann Gat | So I have another question directed to those who say Scheme is not a | Lisp: is the concept of "programming language with S-expression-based | syntax" not important enough to deserve its own less verbose term? If it | is, what should that term be if not "Lisp"? How hard is it to say "Lisp family"? /// -- 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.