merits of Lisp vs Python

[jayessay]

Paul Rubin <http://phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid> writes:

> xscottg at gmail.com writes:
> > I should assume you meant Common Lisp, but there isn't really any
> > reason you couldn't
> > 
> >      (poke destination (peek source))
> 
> That breaks the reliability of GC.  I'd say you're no longer writing
> in Lisp if you use something like that.

Please note: GC is not part of CL's definition.  It is likely not part
of any Lisp's definition (for reasons that should be obvious), and for
the same reasons likely not part of any language's definition.  So,
your point here is actually a category error...


/Jon

-- 
'j' - a n t h o n y at romeo/charley/november com