Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!nntp.club.cc.cmu.edu!hudson.lm.com!news.pop.psu.edu!news.cac.psu.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!gatech!udel!princeton!tucson.princeton.edu!eliot
From: eliot@tucson.princeton.edu (Eliot Handelman)
Subject: Renaming lisp: a suggestion (was: Re: aesthetics of multiple-value-bind (was Re: Urgent! Help! Return more than one argument.))
Message-ID: <1994Dec18.002643.11722@Princeton.EDU>
Originator: news@hedgehog.Princeton.EDU
Sender: news@Princeton.EDU (USENET News System)
Nntp-Posting-Host: tucson.princeton.edu
Organization: Princeton University
References: <D0JGt5.G0@rheged.dircon.co.uk> <19941212T054916Z.enag@naggum.no> <D0rs6v.1q0@rheged.dircon.co.uk>
Date: Sun, 18 Dec 1994 00:26:43 GMT
Lines: 10

simon@rheged.dircon.co.uk (Simon Brooke) wrote:

;Fair enough, you're entitled... de gustibus nil disputandem est, or
;some such thing (my latin is even worse than my LisP).

"LisP" is rather smalltalkish, is it not? After all we do not write
"MultiValBind." We spell it out, using hyphens. Why then tolerate
the obscure condensation of "Lisp," really a remnant of an older coding
practice that gave functions indecipherable names like "frp" and "dwt,"
and instead call lisp "LIST-PROCESSOR"? This is my suggestion.
