Re: GNU Extension Language Plans

["John Lacey" <johnl@cs.indiana.edu>]

net@cs.tu-berlin.de (Oliver Laumann) writes:

>> Then again, GnuScript isn't too bad a name (although people might confuse
>> it with GhostScript).

>If the GNU extension language will be Scheme, then why not call
>it Scheme?  Given that we already have Emacs-Lisp, something
>like GNU-Scheme would be a logical choice.

Except that the GNU extension language will not be Scheme, which
has an international standard, but an incompatible subset with
extensions.  (The third is not a problem, but the first two are.)

GNU Script and GNU EL (with minor variations) are both
potentially confusing, which is a pity. GNU Scheme is simply
inaccurate. While on the topic, though, anyone else notice that
"Scheme" backwards....

John L