🚀 go-pugleaf

>> trivial and lucid in lisps that support continuations and/or engines.
>> try scheme, allegro common lisp, symbolics common lisp, or xerox's
>> interlisp offerings.  
>
>    I take it the Lisp community does not value portability...

Please remember that Lisp is the name of a family of programming
languages, not a specific language (compare this with the family of
Algol- and Pascal-like languages).

The Lisp family boast a vast range of languages, some very much alike,
some not. Like the Algol family, the Lisp-family has had it's share of
standardization efforts (e.g. Common Lisp), attempts at OOPL (CLOS,
Loops, ...), etc. 

The Lisp family is constantly evolving, producing new variants all the
time, some with fancy features, some different because of different
points of view, etc. (Can you say "Modula3", "Oberon", "YouNameIt").
Programming languages just are like that,

Q: Why can't I run my Scheme program with a Common Lisp system.
A: Same reason your C compiler won't compile your Ada program.

>    what happens when you want to take code from one manufacturer's
>    Lisp and compile it on a different system?

If they are both, say, Common Lisp systems, thing will be OK (provided
you didn't use X11 or something nasty like that...).

>    Also: how about exception handling?

Catch!

/Lars
--
Copyright 1989 Lars Fischer; you can redistribute only if your recipients can.
Lars Fischer,  fischer@iesd.auc.dk, {...}!mcvax!iesd!fischer
Department of Computer Science, University of Aalborg, DENMARK.

"I could have done it in a much more complicated
way", said the Red Queen, immensely proud.
			-- Lewis Carrol, Alice in Wonderland