Why would you do that? You could just use `uiop:split-string` and import the function symbol into your current namespace so you can call it as `split-string`.
I mean ask OP, I don't know what's what in the Scheme rXrs or Common Lisp standard libraries.
Although my general stance remains, most lisp code bases I've seen are remarkably verbose which leads to a glazing over far more than the lack of distinct symbols or prefix notation
whartung · · focus · HN ↗
Consider:
Now imagine if we had some "lower weight" glyph besides the paren. Obviously a contrived example replacing () with ., but you can see how "heavy" the parens and how they can dominate what the eye sees.With experience, the parens vanish. The parens being large and common take control of the conversation more than they should.
Avshalom · · focus · HN ↗
Jtsummers · · focus · HN ↗
Avshalom · · focus · HN ↗
Although my general stance remains, most lisp code bases I've seen are remarkably verbose which leads to a glazing over far more than the lack of distinct symbols or prefix notation