<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" version="2.0"><channel><title><![CDATA[Topics tagged with wisp]]></title><description><![CDATA[A list of topics that have been tagged with wisp]]></description><link>https://board.circlewithadot.net/tags/wisp</link><generator>RSS for Node</generator><lastBuildDate>Fri, 15 May 2026 06:11:09 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://board.circlewithadot.net/tags/wisp.rss" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><pubDate>Invalid Date</pubDate><ttl>60</ttl><item><title><![CDATA[Thinking on a new syntax for #Scheme.]]></title><description><![CDATA[@kirtai @mdhughes @restorante @aartaka Smalltalk's control structures are pretty much all higher-order polymorphic functions. I mean, it's a functional language in OO-clothing, so I'd call it quite far from ALGOL. My modern favorite Lisp-with-ALGOL syntax is Elixir, btw. And don't forget that LISP 2, which never happened, was slated to have ALGOL syntax so you're standing on the shoulders of giants if you do that ]]></description><link>https://board.circlewithadot.net/topic/550ec375-c44d-4b1c-8fd9-98f0422dd846/thinking-on-a-new-syntax-for-scheme.</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://board.circlewithadot.net/topic/550ec375-c44d-4b1c-8fd9-98f0422dd846/thinking-on-a-new-syntax-for-scheme.</guid><dc:creator><![CDATA[cdegroot@mstdn.ca]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Invalid Date</pubDate></item></channel></rss>