Subject: Re: Common Lisp's fixable issues?
From: (Rob Warnock)
Date: Sun, 22 Mar 2009 19:54:04 -0500
Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp
Message-ID: <>
John Thingstad <> wrote:
| skrev Vend <>:
| > I suppose that many people here think that Common Lisp is the best
| > possible programming language and consider the idea of fixing it
| > blasphemous. :D
| Not exactly. Once upon a time Richard Feynman set out to create a better  
| notation for calculus. He was happy with it but soon discovered no-one  
| else cold read his results. It is sort of the same with Common Lisp.
| I find it better to stick with standard names as it allows others  
| (experienced users) to more easily read what I have done.

Exactly. I use all *kinds* of shortcuts/abbreviations when I'm just
hacking around in the REPL, but for the most part I am careful to
exclude such idiosyncrasies from production code for the sake of
readability by others -- one notable exception being the use of my
DEFLEX macro for "global lexicals" [which is entirely too convenient
to give up ;-} ].

| I agree the standard is full of inconsistencies and has some
| omissions, but nothing is perfect. They are our warts so to speak.

Indeed. One can only "fix" them at the risk of fragmenting communications
within the community. E.g., it's only now, after talking about it
fairly frequently for six or seven years, that I'm starting to feel
comfortable posting examples using DEFLEX without some long footnote
explaining it. [Though I confess I do still often add a *short*
footnote with a URL to a sample implementation...  ;-} ]


Rob Warnock			<>
627 26th Avenue			<URL:>
San Mateo, CA 94403		(650)572-2607