Rainer Blome rainer@physik3.gwdg.de
Fri, 27 Oct 1995 11:21:09 +0100

Well Dick, (holding my breath)

I did not want to let the list hear this, but you seem to really ask for
it.  For the third time: (letting go)


All of your questions so far are answered there, Fare' took great pains to
explain all of this, and for a reason.  What you are doing is in effect
spamming.  You try to offer us your language as advertisers do, without
trying to find out whether we would even consider it.  If it has features
you know we'd like, great, show them off, i'll be more than willing to
appreciate them.  But you have to learn about what we like before you do

You are not the first to design a new language.  If it were easy, we
wouldn't be still on the runway here.  On the web pages of the list members
you'll find links about like maybe fifty languages.  Not one fits all our
requirements.  Some are nice in that they satisfy more requirements than do
others.  Tell us what parts your language refreshes that other languages
cannot reach.

Look, I don't want to scare you off the list, I want you to make an effort
to understand what a conversation is about _before_ you break into it.

> Which of the following do we prefer?
> [some pascal code]
> OR
> total Is #sumof 1 ... 3

>From the pages it's OBVIOUS that we'd prefer the oneliner, but that's just
the short answer.  The long answer would be different for every single
member of the list.  Mine is, I'd prefer sth like this:

(_ DEFINE total (SUM (... 1 3)))
This may look like Scheme but it isn't, because this should work as well:
(_ DEFINE total ((1 ... 3) SUM))