Plotting an escape from the quagmire of equality in Emacs Lisp (2012)
Quite confused. Two examples:<p>&gt; It turns out there is very little code that would break if Emacs strings became immutable<p>Which means that very little Clojure code would break if they just went ahead and used Emacs strings.<p>&gt; Common Lisp fans claim that lisp-2s have first-class functions, but the way they are kept separate from other first-class values in their own namespace ghetto brings to mind claims of &quot;separate but equal&quot;—at best it is Jim Crow functional programming.<p><i>Jim Crow functional programming??</i> The virtue signalling is strong in this one. He&#x27;s wrong on the facts, too.<p>A Lisp-2 doesn&#x27;t keep the function inside the ghetto, it keeps everyone else out. Functions can be everywhere, but a non-function can&#x27;t be the value of a function binding. Function&#x27;s aren&#x27;t second class in this system, they&#x27;re royal class.