[pro] #; comments...

[Faré]

On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 12:49 PM, Steve Haflich <shaflich at gmail.com> wrote:
> Assuming you are a Common Lisp programmer, implementation is a two liner.
>
> The question under discussion in this thread is not about implementation
> difficulty. It's about whether this syntax is attractive enough,
> unambiguously understandable enough, and would likely become widely enough
> adopted to become part of the portable understood-by-everyone-at-sight
> language.
>
A more important question, to me, is how would such a language relate
to Common Lisp.

Is the point to just write a .asd system that exports the
functionality through named-readtables?
If so, there is nothing to discuss here. Just do it and announce your system.

Is the point to evolve the Common Lisp standard into some kind of CLtL4,
and leave behind other implementations as only being ansi-common-lisp?
I just don't see that happening, what with 9 active implementations to
coordinate.

—♯ƒ • François-René ÐVB Rideau •Reflection&Cybernethics• http://fare.tunes.org
Moderation in temper is always a virtue;
but moderation in principle is always a vice. — Thomas Paine