Re: A Dylan implemented on Common Lisp

[osiris@cs.utexas.edu (Rob Browning)]

>Where Dylan is different from CL, it's because we had reasons. We can't
>make everyone happy, and nothing's ever unanimous, but someone had a good
>case for each one. All Scott was saying is that we broke ranks with CL when
>we thought it would make Dylan more attractive to the mainstream. That was
>the main goal, and CL compatibility took a back seat to that.

Well, I just wish you hadn't given up the prefix syntax, but I realize that
the "mainstream" would never have tolerated it.  But I would like to see
one of the people who argues against prefix be forced to write a macro
parser that is a spowerful CL's for an infix language.

BTW what ever happened to the prefix Dylan syntax.  Is it dead?  I had
thought that it would be nice if Dylan supported two syntaxes.  Aside from
personal preference issues, there are certain operations/transformations
that are easier to perform on prefix (i.e. macros).

--Rob.