> There have been dozens of Lisp-based programming languages that started with > that premise, starting with McCarthy's M-expressions.
But I think my proposal hasn't been tried before: a single consistent set of primitives that map 1-1 to various lisp dialects. You wouldn't be able to translate a nontrivial codebase to both Common Lisp and Scheme. When you target Common Lisp you'd use its libraries and make assumptions about its runtime. You'd just parenthesize let and if differently from Common Lisp. Compiled files would be compatible with Common Lisp, so you could use all the standard libraries of Common Lisp. Or you could switch to a Scheme project and use its runtime, and all its libraries, but with the same consistent syntax for let and if as the Common Lisp project. Calling it a language seems almost too overblown; I'm just creeping scope very slightly relative to sweetexprs :) Have y'all seen lisp-flavored erlang? This seems a little bit like that. --- > The only *new* things that have been added so far, really, are SPLIT in the > middle of a line and period+space/tab as indent. I'm also concerned about the empty-line rule, but I think we can find fixes for it in isolation. And then there was something about starting a top-level form with indent to suppress indent-sensitivity; I'm not too clear on that. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ _______________________________________________ Readable-discuss mailing list Readable-discuss@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/readable-discuss
