[ABE.pm] (1) A Lisp observation (for comment), (2) A Question for abe-pm

[Randy Kramer]

(2) I've been cross posting some of these type questions and comments to lvlug 
and abe.pm.  I think most of my responses have been coming from the lvlug.  I 
think my future questions will focus primarily on Lisp and Ruby.  Is there 
anybody that is interested (or likely to reply to) such question on the 
abe-pm who is not also on the lvlug list?  

(In other words, unless I hear to the contrary, I'll probably stop cross 
posting in favor of posting only to the lvlug list.)

(1) One of the things I'm beginning to sense about Lisp is that it is both a 
very high and a very low level programming language.  For example, I believe 
(but couldn't prove, and wouldn't try to prove) that the conventions for, for 
example, calling a subroutine are not defined by some definition within Lisp 
but are conventions built on top of Lisp.  I (or someone else) could come 
along and define and use a different subroutine calling convention, and Lisp 
gives me low enough level tools to let me implement that within Lisp.

(Am I wrong about that?  But, the bigger question for me is:)

Is that a practical problem?  I mean, have different Lisp libraries used 
different calling conventions that would make it difficult to use libraries 
from different sources within the same program?

(And, is that part of the difference between the different dialects of Lisp?)

Randy Kramer