Python syntax in Lisp and Scheme

[Erann Gat]

In article <yShhb.255119$R32.8279501 at news2.tin.it>, Alex Martelli
<aleax at aleax.it> wrote:

> If you do use the 
> potential implied in that example from Gat, to do things that functions and 
> classes just couldn't _begin_ to, it's worse -- then you're really 
> designing your own private divergent language (which most posters from
> the Lisp camp appear to assert is an unalloyed good, although admittedly
> far from all).

[This may be a duplicate posting -- I wrote a response to this earlier but
it seems to have vanished into the cosmic void.]

FWIW, I do not believe that "designing your own private divergent language
... is an unalloyed good."  I do, however, believe that having the
*ability* to quickly and easily design your own private language is a Good
Thing.  In practice, most "private languages" built using macros are
supersets of Lisp, so this limits the extent to which divergence matters
in practice.

(My original post went on with a rant about how risk aversion was an
impediment to progress, but I think I'll take the disappearance of my
original post as a Sign From God and just leave it at that this time
around.)

E.