> just imagine that my Haskell-style syntax I wouldn't otherwise, but after reading this comment I have to ask: why did you use such a syntax instead of Scheme

> just imagine that my Haskell-style syntax I wouldn't otherwise, but after reading this comment I have to ask: why did you use such a syntax instead of Scheme, which is what TFA uses? EDIT: also, I second "The Little Schemer" suggestion. I'm working (for the nth time) through "The Seasoned Schemer" in preparation for "The Reasoned Schemer" and it still is very enjoyable. It's a bit like SICP but with a sense of humour and unique, engaging style of presentation. Well worth the read!