Talk:Lisp (programming language): Difference between revisions

Revision as of 15:31, 8 August 2003

Revision as of 02:32, 9 August 2003

Line 74:

::::::If you dropped any of these functions, a Lisp programmer would say "this isn't Lisp anymore", so "minimal" is the right word. It doesn't matter what lambda calculus is capable of (by that standard, car/cdr/cons aren't necessary either), because this is about Lisp the language as it is normally understood. If you want to write about some other language that looks like Lisp but has fewer primitives, publish an article about it in Dr. Dobbs and then we'll reference it here. [[User:Stan Shebs|Stan]] 15:31, 8 Aug 2003 (UTC)

:::::::If [[User:P3d0|P3d0]] can implement cond using lambda calculus, ''including the syntax'', his objections would be valid. However, I don't see how to do that off the top of my head, and it may not be possible. -- [[User:CYD|CYD]]