> So scheme WAS a lisp, and now isn't?
EINE: Eine is not Emacs.
ZWEI: Zwei was Eine, Initially.
And, thus:
SWALANI: Swalani Was A Lisp, And Now Isn't.
A dialect waiting to be invented.
:)
What might be a recursive acronym for Scheme, though?
Oh, oh ... I just got one:
"Scheme Crams Hygiene into Every Macro Expansion."
Re:Dinosaur and Lisp
by qwertyuiop924 on Friday August 26, 2016 @07:51AM
(#12365536)
It doesn't, for the record. Not any implementation that you'd use.
The acronym's good though, I just didn't want anybody else thinking that was true, given how many people already do.
> What changed that makes you think that?
R6RS
> As for Clojure not having Lisp lists, its list implementation is... eccentric, but it DOES have lists.
Lazy persistent sequences is the basic abstraction.
Re:Dinosaur and Lisp
by qwertyuiop924 on Friday August 26, 2016 @07:52AM
(#12365541)
Uggghh. R6RS was an absolute mess. But I'd still say it was a lisp.
Have you looked at R7RS, the latest spec, that goes back to the drawing board on a lot of the stuff R6RS did?
And it had better not be nil/false equality. Even McCarthy says that was, if not a mistake, then an accident.
As for Clojure not having Lisp lists, its list implementation is... eccentric, but it DOES have lists.
Actually, scratch that, its list implementation, from a Lisp perspective is broken. Psychotically broken. But it DOES have one. Even if it's insane. What, will you say the same about newlisp lists?
For that matter, is Picolisp a Lisp?