Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!nrl-cmf!ukma!gatech!purdue!decwrl!sun!pitstop!sundc!seismo!uunet!tektronix!sequent!mntgfx!plogan From: plogan@mntgfx.mentor.com (Patrick Logan) Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp Subject: Re: Object in form's function position. Message-ID: <1989Mar14.095224.1479@mntgfx.mentor.com> Date: 14 Mar 89 17:52:23 GMT References: <46129@linus.UUCP> <37400@think.UUCP> Distribution: usa Organization: Mentor Graphics Corporation, Beaverton Oregon Lines: 27 In-reply-to: barmar@think.COM's message of 12 Mar 89 23:28:55 GMT In article <37400@think.UUCP> barmar@think.COM (Barry Margolin) writes: => A secondary result was the realization that functions and variables => are not the only things named by symbols, so merging these two => namespaces would not be the "grand unification" many people expect. => For example, symbols also have property list cells, and they are used => to name classes and data types. We had been calling Common Lisp => "Lisp-2" and Scheme "Lisp-1", but now it appears that the issue is => "Lisp-N" versus "Lisp-N-1". Those of us in the Lisp-N camp believe => that objecting to just one of these namespaces is half-hearted and => inconsistent. Someone who doesn't know Scheme may be lead into thinking Scheme has separate name spaces for property lists, classes, and data types. Scheme only has one name space, for the value bound or assigned. I appreciate that simplicity and feel class hierarchies and property lists, etc., should be implemented as data structures within the environment. Alternatively there could be a different name space for every data type! That may satisy my friends who don't like Lisp's approach to type checking. (Smile?) -- Patrick Logan ...!{decwrl,sequent,tessi}!mntgfx!plogan Mentor Graphics Corporation Beaverton, Oregon