[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I was talking to some Lispers yesterday and they said
Scheme does NOT have a "SYMBOL" type. Rather, in Scheme
a symbol is "just a string" which is a good thing. He said Common Lisp DOES
have a symbol type only for "historical reasons".
I'm not happy knowing Common Lisp is more complicated than absolutely necessary
"for historical reasons".
Why? Some of those historical reasons are *good*.
For example, "file access" is quite complicated because it predates
Windows standardization. However, this means that it can accommodate
things like embedded filesystems, object stores, etc. without having to
break.
In addition, your friend may be right, but that "SYMBOL" type is an
artifact of a Lisp-2 (or Lisp-n) like Common Lisp rather than a Lisp-1
like Scheme. There are implications about scoping and macros that go
along with being a Lisp-1 or Lisp-2.
No, I'm not going to try to explain. The best book on this subject is
"Lisp in Small Pieces". It is a *very* dense book and it will you quite
a while to dig through. However, if you do, you will understand some of
the tradeoffs between Common Lisp and Scheme.
Lisp needs a young "Torvalds" type leader to BREAK BACKWARD COMPATIBILITY and
create the BEST LISP POSSIBLE without giving one thought to past kruft.
The go with Scheme and enjoy.
-a
--
[email protected]
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-lpsg
