I know what you are saying, but that is not what is meant by idiomatic Lisp. Not by Lispers at least.
Non-idiomatic Lisp is typically written by beginners whose code looks more like the language they are accustomed to using previously. For instance, leaning heavily on a procedural style. And not just beginners, but also seasoned programmers that write object oriented Lisp more akin to static OOP. In other words, designing class hierarchies rather than protocols (using generic functions).
What you describe is more of a side effect of the Bipolar Lisp Programmer[1]:
> This is a BBM attitude; it works for me and I understand it. It is also the product of not needing or wanting anybody else's help to do something.
I haven't read Land of Lisp yet, so I can't really comment as to whether I'd consider it idiomatic Lisp or not. (OP meant "idiosyncratic" anyway, it seems.) Not that I'd be a good judge, anyway.
Non-idiomatic Lisp is typically written by beginners whose code looks more like the language they are accustomed to using previously. For instance, leaning heavily on a procedural style. And not just beginners, but also seasoned programmers that write object oriented Lisp more akin to static OOP. In other words, designing class hierarchies rather than protocols (using generic functions).
What you describe is more of a side effect of the Bipolar Lisp Programmer[1]:
> This is a BBM attitude; it works for me and I understand it. It is also the product of not needing or wanting anybody else's help to do something.
I haven't read Land of Lisp yet, so I can't really comment as to whether I'd consider it idiomatic Lisp or not. (OP meant "idiosyncratic" anyway, it seems.) Not that I'd be a good judge, anyway.
[1] http://www.shenlanguage.org/lambdassociates/htdocs/blog/bipo...