begin quoting [EMAIL PROTECTED] as of Fri, Jan 25, 2008 at 12:02:21PM -0800: > 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". > > Lisp needs a young "Torvalds" type leader to BREAK BACKWARD COMPATIBILITY and > create the BEST LISP POSSIBLE without giving one thought to past kruft.
Already happened, didn't it? That's how we got Scheme. > Perhaps Scheme is a good start for this. What does Scheme lack that you need? -- Always hitting shift nine Does not make a good line. Stewart Stremler -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-lpsg
