Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!lavaca.uh.edu!uhnix1!sugar!ficc!peter From: peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp Subject: Re: Virtues of Lisp syntax (a tangent on macros and Scheme) Message-ID: Date: 22 Sep 90 15:41:25 GMT References: <10466@life.ai.mit.edu> <6217@castle.ed.ac.uk> <10722@life.ai.mit.edu> <20501@well.sf.ca.us> <1990Sep18.180829.8801@hellgate.utah.edu> <12812@ists.ists.ca> Reply-To: peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) Organization: Xenix Support, FICC Lines: 11 In article <12812@ists.ists.ca> mike@ists.ists.ca.ists.ca (Mike Clarkson) writes: > I feel that the approach of encouraging > implementations to continue to experiment with different solutions has > had its merits (first class continuations as an example), but the time > has come to solidify the language and build upwards on the very real > accomplishments of the base language. As an object lesson on what can happen to a language if you let this sort of experimentation run unchecked, look at Forth. They are finally working on an ANSI standard for the language, and they can't even agree on how division should work! -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' +1 713 274 5180. 'U` peter@ferranti.com