Subject: Re: About Arc
From: (Rob Warnock)
Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 19:44:18 -0500
Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp
Message-ID: <>
Ken Tilton  <> wrote:
| 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			<>
627 26th Avenue			<URL:>
San Mateo, CA 94403		(650)572-2607