Re: nested define syntax

[Marius Vollmer]

Matthias Koeppe <address@hidden> writes:

> > But I could also image that we might want that syntax for
> > some other extension that is less elegant but more practical.  Common
> > Lisp has function names that are lists of symbols, for example.  The
> > setter of FOO is called (SETTER FOO).  That's certainly an elegant
> > concept as well, and it is extensible.  Just one half of a thought.
> 
> That's fine for Comon Lisp, where functions are defined with (defun
> FUNCTION-NAME LAMBDA-LIST BODY...).  It does not fit at all into the
> Scheme define syntax, though.  

Yep, probably.