Scheme vs. CommonLisp vs. the World

[Kalman Reti]

    Date: Mon, 12 May 1997 19:44 EDT
    From: hbaker@netcom.com (Henry G. Baker)

    > I think I can count on my hands how many people think
    > complex numbers should be retained in a new CL.

    I agree that complex numbers should _not_ be part of 'basic'/primitive
    Lisp, but it should be possible to program them as a library package
    on top.  Ditto for bignums.  
				 
You might want to reconsider on bignums.  A single large file on a big disk these
days overflows 32 bits in byte length.

				 (Ditto for multidimensional arrays and
    other arcania.)

    Indeed, one of my complaints in 'Equal Rights' was the inability in CL
    to define a new _functional_ type and have it compare correctly.  All
    of the CL defstruct and CLOS types were forced by the CL standard to
    be mutable (nonfunctional) types.

    -- 
    Henry Baker
    www/ftp directory URL:
    ftp://ftp.netcom.com/pub/hb/hbaker/home.html