David F. Place wrote: > I don't deny that all of the things you mentioned are wonderful > indeed. I just wonder if they really could only be done in lisp or > even most conveniently.
Obviously, if you can do it in Lisp, you can do it in any Turing-complete language; in the worst case, you just write a Lisp interpreter. As for convenience: syntax matters. The equivalence of code and data in Lisp lets you write your own syntactic sugar. You're still bound by the lexical (token-level) grammar, although reader macros mean that isn't much of a restriction. -- Glynn Clements <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
