"A Lisp that runs Python" is kind of vague. Hy describes itself as "a Lisp-flavored Python". I'd call it "a lisp that compiles to Python".
You might like sweet expressions coupled with a common lisp, a scheme or racket:
... Or perhaps have a look at Julia:
"Julia - to Lisp or not to Lisp":
[ed: and as mentioned below, there's also wisp:
I think S-expr trees and their macros are the right way to write code, and that a S-expr diff is the one true way to do git-diff. But so far I haven't seen a language that integrates into the toolchain like that.
Go has gofmt that at least acknowledges that style should be consistent, but I would argue 'who gives a fuck'. The expression tree is what really matters.
I tend to use VS Code, but it just has a plugin package named "wisp" with no documentation, looks for ".w" extensions, and is on version 0.0.1...
Right at this moment I'm reading this paredit guide : http://danmidwood.com/content/2014/11/21/animated-paredit.ht...
Someone correct me if I've got that wrong.
So Common Lisp objects can't be quickly copied or shared to Python, and for each invocation there is a time overhead.
I'd love to see a good bridge from Common Lisp to Python. It should be possible.
And the "burgled-batteries" name was a good laugh! (If Python is "batteries included", let's steal those batteries!)
I don't know that I'd call them weird, just the natural result of Python's assignment syntax (tho I suspect that you might call that weird as well). Without specific declaration syntax, it would be somewhere between messy and impossible to differentiate between block and function-level scopes. The only thing I could think of would be the inclusion of a new declaration/assignment operator, like `=:`, that would declare the variable as block scoped, but such a change would be backwards incompatible and I don't believe they're going to do that again.
What would you like it to look like? How would you want it to work?
However, allowing block scope variables would make the interpreter internals far more complex for dubious benefit.