Python syntax in Lisp and Scheme

[Matthias]

cstacy at dtpq.com (Christopher C. Stacy) writes:

> He probably means "operator overloading" -- in languages where
> there is a difference between built-in operators and functions,
> their OOP features let them put methods on things like "+".
> [...] 
> And in Lisp if you want to do some 
> other kind of arithmetic, you must make up your names for those
> operators.  This is considered to be a good feature.

In comp.lang.lisp there was recently a thread discussing why not all
CL-types were also CL-classes and all functions CLOS-methods (so that
operator overloading would be possible).  I think the outcome was more
or less "it happened by historic accident and it's easier to write
fast compilers then".  In general, taking away flexibility from the
programmer is not in the spirit of Lisp, though.