Ken Tilton <email@example.com> wrote:
| firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
| > That said, one can prefer different language implementations for
| > different purposes. Maybe he doesn't prefer Scheme,
| I believe he might. The quote I recall is something along the ideas of
| liking Lisp but Common Lisp sucks. Too big, COND has too many parens,
| which latter I was surprised to see is also a McCarthy quote.
Hilarious, since Scheme's COND is identical to CL's!! ;-} ;-}
p.s. O.k., o.k., not *identical*, since for the test condition in
the last or "default" clause Scheme supports either the ELSE "keyword"
[or *any* other non-#F constant, of course], while CL conventionally
uses T [or *any* other non-NIL constant, such as 'ELSE or :ELSE,
heh, heh!]. But close enough. The parens are the same...
p.s. Similarly, Scheme's CASE supports only ELSE as a keyword for
for the "default" clause, while CL supports either T or OTHERWISE.
But again, close enough, since the comparison operators are both
EQV? or EQL, repectively, which are also (roughly) the same.
Rob Warnock <email@example.com>
627 26th Avenue <URL:http://rpw3.org/>
San Mateo, CA 94403 (650)572-2607