Anton van Straaten <email@example.com> wrote:
| Jeff Dalton wrote:
| > But the idea of a core plus macros was present in CL.
| > There was a relatively small set of (24) "special forms"
| > and no way to define more, only macros. ...
| Is there a list of the 24 somewhere? The "CL core spec" would be
| something I'd find interesting, but it seems rather buried within
| the larger standards and references.
Barely two weeks ago, someone posed the question "Are there any
'special operators' in Lisp?" (as opposed to macros), to which I
posted an answer ["Yes; and no, not necessarily (but maybe)"].
The key references were the CLHS "126.96.36.199.2.1 Special Forms",
which has a list of 25 (not 24) special operators. But...
CLHS "188.8.131.52.2.2 Macro Forms" also says:
An implementation is free to implement a Common Lisp special
operator as a macro.
An implementation is free to implement any macro operator as a
special operator, but only if an equivalent definition of the
macro is also provided.
Rob Warnock <firstname.lastname@example.org>
627 26th Avenue <URL:http://rpw3.org/>
San Mateo, CA 94403 (650)572-2607