Newsgroups: comp.lang.scheme,comp.org.lisp-users
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!news.mathworks.com!uhog.mit.edu!sgiblab!news.cs.indiana.edu!johnl@cs.indiana.edu
From: "John Lacey" <johnl@cs.indiana.edu>
Subject: Re: GNU Extension Language Plans
Message-ID: <1994Oct25.010925.17625@news.cs.indiana.edu>
Organization: Computer Science, Indiana University
References: <9410201942.AA08436@mole.gnu.ai.mit.edu> <389e9e$2q5@tools.near.net> <38av7u$o5m@news.cs.tu-berlin.de>
Date: Tue, 25 Oct 1994 01:09:23 -0500
Lines: 19
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.lang.scheme:10599 comp.org.lisp-users:118

net@cs.tu-berlin.de (Oliver Laumann) writes:

>> Then again, GnuScript isn't too bad a name (although people might confuse
>> it with GhostScript).

>If the GNU extension language will be Scheme, then why not call
>it Scheme?  Given that we already have Emacs-Lisp, something
>like GNU-Scheme would be a logical choice.

Except that the GNU extension language will not be Scheme, which
has an international standard, but an incompatible subset with
extensions.  (The third is not a problem, but the first two are.)

GNU Script and GNU EL (with minor variations) are both
potentially confusing, which is a pity. GNU Scheme is simply
inaccurate. While on the topic, though, anyone else notice that
"Scheme" backwards....

John L
