Re: Relative merits of Lisp-1 vs. Lisp-2?

Ron Garret <rNOSPAMon@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

In article <87r72aui27.fsf@xxxxxxxxx>,
Burton Samograd <kruhft@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Yes, maybe I'll have to move to Scheme. I like this camp though...

Scheme has its own set of annoyances. On the whole I find CL less
annoying, but ((...) ...) it particularly irksome because it's a
gratuitous restriction that is impossible to fix at the user level.

Does the (lisp-1 ...) macros that were previously posted help with
that? I admit, I never tried them.

--
burton samograd kruhft .at. gmail
'programmed piano ep' now available : http://kruhft.boldlygoingnowhere.org
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Relative merits of Lisp-1 vs. Lisp-2?
    ... Burton Samograd wrote: ... Scheme has its own set of annoyances. ... Does the macros that were previously posted help with ... error unless the first list is a lambda form. ...
    (comp.lang.lisp)
  • Re: Relative merits of Lisp-1 vs. Lisp-2?
    ... Burton Samograd wrote: ... Scheme has its own set of annoyances. ... Does the macros that were previously posted help with ... macros that were previously posted" and "that". ...
    (comp.lang.lisp)
  • Re: How Common Lisp sucks
    ... Ron Garret wrote: ... That makes for very slow progress. ... was the blogger talking about Scheme or Common Lisp. ...
    (comp.lang.lisp)
  • Re: How Common Lisp sucks
    ... Ron Garret wrote: ... Isn't this exactly the much criticised Scheme way of doing things? ... Of course, it is not a goal of Scheme to be backwards compatible, so this is not a criticism of Scheme, but a criticism of its goals. ...
    (comp.lang.lisp)