From: Mark Tarver
Subject: Re: An Acceptable Lisp
Date: Mon, 01 Sep 2008 18:09:59 +0000
Message-ID: <812c7916-63d8-42fe-bbe6-5d82e84a54ea@34g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>

> So, returning to my previous question: if I define this new
> macroexpand in such way and try to load the code, written in infix
> manner, it won't compile, right?
>
> Vsevolod

Correct.

Mark

From: Mark Tarver
Subject: Re: An Acceptable Lisp
Date: Mon, 01 Sep 2008 23:59:31 +0000
Message-ID: <1831c162-6953-4041-a3d8-057a0fb53f4a@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>

On 1 Sep, 19:09, Mark Tarver <··········@ukonline.co.uk> wrote:
> > So, returning to my previous question: if I define this new
> > macroexpand in such way and try to load the code, written in infix
> > manner, it won't compile, right?
>
> > Vsevolod
>
> Correct.
>
> Mark

Actually I shouldn't have said 'correct' so quickly.  For the
*redefinition* of the syntax of define - effectively the old infix
conventions are overwritten and will no longer work.  But for the
mydef version of Ali - they operate in parallel with the infix.

Mark