lispy | An inline compiler/interpreter for LISP in JavaScript | Interpreter library

A claim that I recall being repeated in the Clojure for Lisp Programmers videos is that a great weakness of the earlier Lisps, particularly Common Lisp, is that too much is married to the list structure of Lisps, particularly cons cells. You can find one occurrence of this claim just at the 25 minute mark in the linked video, but I'm sure that I can remember hearing it elsewhere in the series. Importantly, at that same point in the video, we see this slide, showing us that Clojure has many other data structures than just the old school Lispy lists: This troubles me. My knowledge of Lisp is quite limited, but I've always been told that a key element of its legendary metaprogrmmability is that everything - yes, everything - is a list and that this is what prevents the sort of errors that we get when trying to metaprogram other languages. Does this suggest that by adding new first-class data structures, Clojure has reduces its homoiconicity, thus making it more difficult to metaprogram than other Lisps, such as Common Lisp?

I'm trying to edit Norvig's lispy.py scheme-to-python interpreter for a racket program in which, in addition to the procedures he includes, I use open-input-string and string-replace.

It looked like I could just add the corresponding python definitions into his add_globals() function, which I did, as follows.

Often a function takes an optional argument that defaults to the identity function (the function that returns its argument, not id). A typical example is the key argument of sorted.

In my case the key is a class field:

I have one more questions about Hygienic macros in Scheme, consider example from R5RS