Subject: Re: Why is Scheme not a Lisp? From: Erik Naggum <firstname.lastname@example.org> Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 04:48:47 GMT Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp Message-ID: <email@example.com> * Doug Quale | I hope Erik Naggum is reading this, because he maintains that "Lisp" is | not understood to mean the Lisp family. Does the world really have only one context in your mind? Perhaps that is the fundamental nature of the troll? | Also, you frequently seem to use Lisp yourself when you are in fact | assuming CL. That is the _point_, dude. Be nice and get it. | Do you mean that saying "Scheme is a member of the lisp family" would | make the word "lisp" useless? I don't agree, but clearly that is a | matter of opinion. No, that is precisely what would _give_ "Lisp" accurate meaning. | As is your right. The original question that spawned this thread | boils down to, "What is your list that makes Scheme not a Lisp?" No, that is not what it boils down to. It boils down to "we reject the reasons the Scheme freaks have to want to say Scheme is a Lisp", one of them being "oh, it just means the same as 'Scheme is in the Lisp family', which we stubbornly do not want to say because it probably does not bug the Common Lisp people" Please figure out that this is not about your anal-retentive "list of features" question. When you keep making up things to argue against that people do not actually mean, and continue despite negative feedback, you _must_ be a stupid troll just out to annoy people. Quit playing games. /// -- 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.