Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!watcgl!kdmoen
From: kdmoen@watcgl.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp
Subject: First Class Environments in Scheme?
Message-ID: <2095@watcgl.waterloo.edu>
Date: Thu, 22-Oct-87 11:00:59 EDT
Article-I.D.: watcgl.2095
Posted: Thu Oct 22 11:00:59 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 24-Oct-87 12:22:00 EDT
References: <3431@sol.ARPA> <23200001@silver>
Reply-To: kdmoen@watcgl.waterloo.edu (Doug Moen)
Organization: U. of Waterloo, Ontario
Lines: 23

likes@silver.bacs.indiana.edu writes:
>If you look at it Common Lisp is just one series of kludges after another
>(extra arguments to assoc, packages, no first-class functions, etc...)
>On the other hand, Scheme has more of a unified picture of the world
>(if you ignore versions with first class environments ala M.I.T.).

First class environments are not discussed in any of the MIT tech reports
on Scheme that I possess.  What are they, how are they used,
and why do they compromise Schemes "unified picture of the world"?

One other thing:  in the R3 Report on Scheme, it says:
  "Scheme does not have any standard facility for defining macros.
  "The ability to alter the syntax of the language creates numerous
   problems. All current implementations of Scheme have macro facilities,
   ... but it isn't clear at this time which solution is best.
   <this is followed by a list of problems with macros>
Perhaps this was true a year ago, but is it still true?
Has anyone done work that "solves" the macro problem?
-- 
Doug Moen
University of Waterloo Computer Graphics Lab
UUCP:     {ihnp4,watmath}!watcgl!kdmoen
INTERNET: kdmoen@cgl.waterloo.edu