Python syntax in Lisp and Scheme

[Marco Antoniotti]

Sander Vesik wrote:
> In comp.lang.scheme David Rush <drush at aol.net> wrote:
> 
>>>Exceptions              no              yes
>>
>>                         yes, via continuations which reify the
>>                         fundamental control operators in all languages
> 
> 
> the exceptions SRFI and saying it is there as an extension would imho be a
> better answer.


It would also be more correct to point out that most of the SRFI's 
address features that are already in the CL standard and reliably 
implemented in all CL implementations (which are at least 9).


> 
> 
>>>Implementations         >10             ~4
>>
>>                         too many to count. The FAQ lists over twenty. IMO
>>                         there are about 9 'major' implementations which 
>>have
>>                         relatively complete compliance to R5RS and/or
>>                         significant extension libraries
>>
> 
> 
> And the number is likely to continue increase over the years. Scheme is
> very easy to implement, including as an extensions language inside the
> runtime of something else. The same doesn't really hold for common lisp.

One of the reasons why all the time spent on the godzillionth 
incompatible Scheme implementation would be better spent on improving 
Common Lisp.

Cheers
--
Marco Antoniotti