Python syntax in Lisp and Scheme

[Pascal Bourguignon]

"Andrew Dalke" <adalke at mindspring.com> writes:
> Or is there a requirement that it be constrained to display
> systems which can only show ASCII?  (Just like a good
> Lisp editor almost requires the ability to reposition a
> cursor to blink on matching open parens.  Granted, that
> technology is a few decades old now while Unicode isn't,
> but why restrict a new language to the display systems
> of the past instead of the present?)

Because  the  present  is  composed  of  the past.   You  have  to  be
compatible,  otherwise  you could  not  debug  a  Deep Space  1  probe
160 million km away, (and this one was only two or three years old).




> Indeed.  It looks easier to understand to my untrained eye.
> I disagree that "+" shouldn't work on strings because that
> operation isn't commutative -- commutativity isn't a feature
> of + it's a feature of + on a certain type of set.

Mathematicians  indeed  overload operators  with  taking into  account
their   precise   properties.    But  mathematicians   are   naturally
intelligent.  Computers and  our programs are not.  So  it's easier if
you classify operators per properties; if you map the semantics to the
syntax, this allow you to apply transformations on your programs based
on the syntax without having to recover the meaning.
 

-- 
__Pascal_Bourguignon__
http://www.informatimago.com/
Do not adjust your mind, there is a fault in reality.