sperber(a)informatik.uni-tuebingen.de (Michael Sperber [Mr. Preprocessor]) writes: Not so by design. In fact, we were discussing introduction of a lexically scoped `let' to elisp many times. And guess what? The proposed semantics were equivalent to those used by CL -- lexical scope by default, dynamic scope for special variables. Quite true -- I am not denying this. I don't care. Emacs is not ANSI CL. If that was the impression I was giving, I apologize, because that is not what I meant. I will probably not be the one doing the work, and I have not a clear idea of what it would take. This, however, should not mean I get no vote in the discussion. I know where I want to end up. The Scheme users and implementors don't have the constraint of previous implementation of Common Lisp idioms. We do, and I would like us to preserve them. I don't believe this. Common Lisp may not be perfect, but it's far too complex to simulate correctly without a *lot* of effort. What kind of write-up? Haven't I sent you my discussion with Bruno Haible? Bruno's messages are an excellent case /pro/ clisp. I don't like CMU CL (far too slow and buggy IMHO), and I haven't worked with GCL much. It might be usable. -- Hrvoje Niksic <hniksic(a)srce.hr&gt; | Student at FER Zagreb, Croatia --------------------------------+-------------------------------- HOW YOU CAN TELL THAT IT'S GOING TO BE A ROTTEN DAY: #15 Your pet rock snaps at you.