[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: A Dylan implemented on Common Lisp
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org (Steve Strassmann)
- Subject: Re: A Dylan implemented on Common Lisp
- From: email@example.com (Rob Browning)
- Date: Wed, 8 Mar 1995 10:29:31 -0600
- Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Sender: email@example.com
>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).