4 ms·

For posterity, here are the docs for `cons`: http://docs.racket-lang.org/reference/pairs.html?q=cons#%28def._%28%28quote._~23~25kernel%29._cons%29%29 http://doc

by samth 10y ago

For posterity, here are the docs for `cons`: http://docs.racket-lang.org/reference/pairs.html?q=cons#%28def._%28%28quote._~23~25kernel%29._cons%29%29 http://docs.racket-lang.org/reference/pairs.html?q=cons#%28d... I don't see 10 levels of nonsense there. But clearly you're not happy about larger aspects of the system that it's probably not worth debating here. But let's just say that (a) syntax-case is a pattern matching library, not a macro system, and (b) Racket's macro system has demonstrated its usefulness by building those libraries that you claimed were built in, such as OO systems and contracts.

qwertyuiop924 10y ago
Racket's macro system has proved it is as capable as any other macro system. No more, no less. I merely argue that it is overly complicated.
qwertyuiop924 10y ago
in response to b, I knew full well how those libraries were built. When I said built in, I meant part of core. And before you claim they aren't in core, I mean what the rest of the scheme world means when they say core: stdlib.