> Emacs Lisp is also pretty darned incompatible with Common Lisp Not true, both have the core of McCarthy's Lisp and are in the Maclisp line... > If one choos

> Emacs Lisp is also pretty darned incompatible with Common Lisp Not true, both have the core of McCarthy's Lisp and are in the Maclisp line... > If one chooses a definition of lisp that only includes Common Lisp Nobody does that. > , then no other lisp can be a lisp unless it implements the ANSI Common Lisp spec (is SBCL a lisp? I hear they added TCO, which isn't in the spec). How is that relevant? Garbage Collection is also not in the spec. Lot's of random stuff is not in the spec. > But most people consider Emacs Lisp, Scheme, and indeed Clojure a lisp. Since "most people" don't even know what Lisp is, nothing follows from this. > I've seen the lisp means Common Lisp argument elsewhere Defintely elsewhere. It hasn't been made here. First rule: if the thing has not Lisp in its name, it probably is not a Lisp. Second rule: if it is not somewhat compatible with Lisp 1, then it is not a Lisp. From that you can infer that languages like Lisp 1, Lisp 1.5, Lisp 2, Maclisp, BBN Lisp, UCI Lisp, VAX Lisp, Spice Lisp, New Implementation Lisp, Zetalisp, Franz Lisp, Standard Lisp, Interlisp, Eulisp, LeLisp, Mulisp, Emacs Lisp, Xlisp, Common Lisp, various Common Lisp derived languages, ISLisp, are all direct Lisp dialects. See here: http://www.softwarepreservation.org/projects/LISP/ http://www.softwarepreservation.org/projects/LISP/