From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_DATE
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ames!zodiac!ZOOKS.ADS.COM!rar
From: rar@ZOOKS.ADS.COM (Bob Riemenschneider)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Ada vs. LISP
Message-ID: <8903082205.AA08704@zooks.ads.com>
Date: 8 Mar 89 22:05:57 GMT
Sender: daemon@zodiac.UUCP
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

=>   From: eachus@mbunix.mitre.org (Robert Eachus)
=>
=>	One of the things which I did during the ANSI standardization of
=>   Ada was to look for ANYTHING in the standard which would make
=>   translation of LISP programs into Ada difficult.  There were a few
=>   problems in the early drafts, but they were all eliminated by the
=>   final draft.  As one of the problems for the AdaCan contest I proposed
=>   writing a compatiblity package to allow transliterated Common LISP to
=>   be compiled by any Ada compiler.  (There are certain LISP lexical
=>   conventions that are incompatible with Ada, but they are easily dealt
=>   with: 'a --> QUOTE(A).)  
=>
=>	The problem was eliminated from the final list as too easy, but I
=>   still recieved two proposed solutions from LISP and Ada programers I
=>   showed the writeup to! ...

Could you provide more detail?  Handling the "LISP 1.0 subset" is
straightforward.  But how, for example, would the program

			(apply (read) (read))

be written in AdaLISP?

							-- rar