Heh, I'd probably take R4RS with define-syntax :-)

I mean, good choice, but you see the point, right? As much as ANSI CL has it's flaws, it has a standard, as much of a mixed bag it might be. Scheme is just a general potpourri of "we kinda have a guideline, but do whatever".

I would very much prefer scheme if the different implementations had a working standard. But I can't take my Chez-scheme code and throw it into Guile-scheme.

But pretty good chance I can take my ECL code and throw it into SBCL or LispWorks.

	▲	xscott an hour ago \| parent [-]
		> you see the point, right? Bah, I think this debate was already old when I first saw people arguing it on comp.lang.lisp in the 90s. I don't have a dog in this fight other than to reject the notion that Common Lisp is "coherent" and not "organically grown". The original Scheme belongs in the category of languages like Standard ML and SmallTalk, where a small, careful, and talented group designed them with focus. Common Lisp seems like a bunch of smart people with competing interest and legacy baselines tried to meet in the middle. To the extent CL is more pragmatic, it's another example of "Worse is Better".