> Well, also give up infix functions/operators, False. All you really need is a bijection: McCarthy himself suggested f[x;y]<=>(f x y) and it seems reasonable

> Well, also give up infix functions/operators, False. All you really need is a bijection: McCarthy himself suggested f[x;y]<=>(f x y) and it seems reasonable (and it turns out to be actually useful!) to declare a domain of f where you permit xfy<=>(f x y) One of his students implemented this: http://i.stanford.edu/pub/cstr/reports/cs/tr/68/92/CS-TR-68-92.pdf http://i.stanford.edu/pub/cstr/reports/cs/tr/68/92/CS-TR-68-... which certainly has... other issues, but I don't agree infix syntax is incompatible with lisp. > operator precedence, readable equations, etc. Yes please. "readability" is usually given to mean "most people believe they can read it" and not something useful like "most people understand it fully", and nearly any reduction in typing that operator-precedence can offer can be obtained with a simpler rule (like right-of-left) and ordering. That is to say these things (in their usual meaning) have net-negative value to programs and programmers, are a frequent root-cause of bugs.