From rizen@ispwest.com Wed Mar 13 18:39:54 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: rizen@ispwest.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: unknown); 14 Mar 2002 02:39:54 -0000 Received: (qmail 68069 invoked from network); 14 Mar 2002 02:39:53 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.172) by m12.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 14 Mar 2002 02:39:53 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ispwestemail.aceweb.net) (216.52.245.18) by mta2.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 14 Mar 2002 02:39:53 -0000 Received: from there (unverified [66.2.47.25]) by ispwestemail.aceweb.net (Vircom SMTPRS 1.2.221) with SMTP id for ; Wed, 13 Mar 2002 18:37:28 -0800 Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] lojban application in wearable computing Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 18:36:23 -0800 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.3.1] References: <02031317374300.01243@linux> In-Reply-To: <02031317374300.01243@linux> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: Ted Reed X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=104181342 X-Yahoo-Profile: xrizen > > Perhaps not lisp, but scheme tends to be organized around predicate > > syntax and brackets to define things that are more than one word. > > not necessarily, but again if your list head symbols are defined as > predicates (or functions returning a boolean value) it would be like you > say. My question is, why do we even have to base it on a preexisting proglang? It seems to me that lojban already has its own syntax and trying to force it into the confines of a preexisting language would limit the effectiveness of using lojban in the first place. -- rizen