From: Jordan Bortz
Subject: Scheme or LISP in Smalltalk?
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 1989 04:49:01 +0000
Message-ID: <14557@well.UUCP>

Has anyone implemented a lisp or schme in Smalltalk?
How hard would it be to handle local variable bindings?
	Jordan
-- 
***********************************************************************
*  Jordan A. Bortz, Higher Level Software, Santa Cruz, CA             *
*  well!frobozz ·······@well.sf.ca.us   408 - 476 - 8464              *
***********************************************************************

From: Timothy Hansell
Subject: Re: Scheme or LISP in Smalltalk?
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 1989 17:44:29 +0000
Message-ID: <73957@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu>

In article <·····@well.UUCP> ·······@well.UUCP (Jordan Bortz) writes:
>
>Has anyone implemented a lisp or schme in Smalltalk?
>How hard would it be to handle local variable bindings?
>	Jordan
>-- 
>***********************************************************************
>*  Jordan A. Bortz, Higher Level Software, Santa Cruz, CA             *
>*  well!frobozz ·······@well.sf.ca.us   408 - 476 - 8464              *
>***********************************************************************



I'm not sure about a lisp or a scheme, but
as to the question of local variable bindings ---

I have seen an addition to smalltalk workspaces, that
allowed for the creation and the persistent existence of variables
that were local to the workspace. When the workspace is remove the
variables go away. I'm not sure how close that is to what
you are talking about but this was implemented using a dictionary
in the workspace to keep track of local variables.

-tim