On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 12:27:10 +0200
Mate Nagy <mnagy_AT_port70.net> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 12:22:52PM +0200, Mate Nagy wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 03:10:27AM -0700, Robert Ransom wrote:
> > > Scheme *should* be used for everything because at least one good macro
> > > system has been designed for it. Lisp macros can do arbitrary
> > > computation at compile-time, and the Scheme macro system required by
> > > R6RS provides all the power of Lisp macros *and* supports a
> > > pattern-matching macro specification syntax for simple syntactic sugar.
> > this is exactly the reason scheme macros are horrible and Lisp macros
> > are better for your mind and health. This is one of the humongous,
> > indefensible warts on the scheme language (the other being #f)
> whoops... i misunderstood your post as a flame for hygienic macros against
> generic lisp macros. maybe i've been reading too many uriel posts
It was (at least in that paragraph). See my reply to your other message
for three examples of useful SYNTAX-RULES macros; SYNTAX-RULES cannot
be implemented properly without a hygienic macro system. I don't think
you would actually object to having a hygienic macro system and
SYNTAX-RULES *along with* the full compilation-at-compile-time
functionality of Common Lisp macros.
Robert Ransom
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Tue Jun 22 2010 - 11:00:03 UTC