>>212
Writing a 'function in LISP' would introduce a huge performance penalty, the author understands this well enough.
Giving LITHPers enough rope to create 'LITHP functions' will force the author to invent optimizing LITHP compiler on par with GCC(highly unlikely) or endure the complaints of LITHPers who would discover how slow and memory hungry their programs become.
They of course will never compare assembly output of LISP and C, such 'inconvenient truths' will destroy their notion of elegance and simplicity of LITHP.