On Fri, 2006-11-24 at 21:43 +0100, C.R. Kirkwood-Watts wrote: > If the Scheme codes are even remotely portable, there are Scheme > implementations that compile to native code and give good performance. > > If that's not enough, and at the risk of sounding glib, is there a > reason you aren't using Common Lisp with your CLOS?
It is my understanding that both Common Lisp and more efficient Scheme implementations were initially considered, but rejected due to other fairly stringent requirements, such as portability to both Windows and a number of less-than-popular Unix platforms, and easy interfacing to C code. _______________________________________________ pygtk mailing list [email protected] http://www.daa.com.au/mailman/listinfo/pygtk Read the PyGTK FAQ: http://www.async.com.br/faq/pygtk/
