The problem, as far as AoC is concerned, is that Lisp tend to produce lisp-like DSL, so won't match AoC specs. Then again AoC specs are simple enough that you c

The problem, as far as AoC is concerned, is that Lisp tend to produce lisp-like DSL, so won't match AoC specs. Then again AoC specs are simple enough that you can still get away with using Lisp. Obviously, the OP targeted their language for AoC because, come on, whoever would want to have the ability to swap the precedence and meaning of operators? That would be a fresh hell that would make early-90s abuse of operator overloading in C++ seem like a joyful time.