Testing the waters.

[Marcus G. Daniels]

>>>>> "CB" == Chris Bitmead uid(x22068) <Chris.Bitmead@Alcatel.com.au> writes:

CB> Yeah well, the proper way of doing macros in Scheme is with
CB> define-syntax, not define-macro.

Very well, MIT Scheme has define-syntax.  Guile has it too (if you load it).

MD> (note also that there is interest by the Guile developers to port
MD> STk's STklos to Guile)

CB> Well if STklos is written in standard Scheme it won't need
CB> porting will it?

Just a matter of adding the `%' internal STk extensions to Guile (or whatever).

My point is simply that if all people want is Common Lisp features,
that is certainly feasible to provide using Scheme or something very
similiar to Scheme.

Now if there are ready and willing developers that want Common Lisp
because they've got big apps they want to easily adapt to LispOS, that
is an actual argument for going with Common Lisp (especially if they
are prepared to share these apps).  Lemee see what do I care about,
maybe Maxima, sorta kinda CLX, Garnet but not really... umm.. 
err.. uh..