Lars> Anyway. Few would argue that Scheme isn't more ideologically pure, Lars> but I dislike cleanliness. Common Lisp is a great, towering beast, Lars> but you don't have to be familiar with even a fraction of it to get Lars> lots of mileage out of it. And as you learn more, you find that it's Lars> basically all there. The problem with Scheme is that's there's Lars> generally nothing there, so you have to write all the code Lars> yourself, However, we're dealing with XEmacs here. Of the functionality we need for hacking the editor, almost none of it is either in Common Lisp or Scheme, as Stephen Turnbull pointed out. (Of course it isn't, but this makes the size of the semantic gap between the two smaller.) Lars> With Common Lisp one gets a language environment that is Lars> reasonably standard -- you can expect books like CLtL2, Lars> commercial environments like Allegro, free environments like Lars> CLISP, and (oh, joy of joys) an Emacs that one would know how to Lars> use if one was familiar with any of the others. Problem is, that, as far as I can see, none of the free implementations actually cover the standard. -- Cheers =8-} Chipsy Friede, Völkerverständigung und überhaupt blabla