5 ms·
This proposal is very similar to "sweet expressions": http://www.dwheeler.com/readable/sweet-expressions.html http://www.dwheeler.com/readable/sweet-expression
by spacemanaki 16y ago
This proposal is very similar to "sweet expressions":
http://www.dwheeler.com/readable/sweet-expressions.html http://www.dwheeler.com/readable/sweet-expressions.html
edited to add:
"it makes the language far more flexible than any other language and provides a foundation for fully hygienic macros: you can modify the program entirely while it’s running and guarantee that there will be no crazy conflict behaviour. "
That's not true though, Common Lisp's macros can have nasty variable capture issues, can't they? This isn't using the word "hygienic" in the sense of Scheme's, so what does this mean exactly?
- lubutu 16y agothanks, i'd not read this. they do seem quite similar, though i think we focus on different things. i think i prefer haskell operators to infixing with {}. still, i hadn't considered subscripting.
- oconnore 16y agoCommon Lisp macros allow the programmer to capture variables if they desire and/or are ignorant of the semantics of the language. Sometimes this is nice, like in the anaphora package. Defining hygienic macros is not hard though.
- spacemanaki 16y agoThat's basically what I thought. I misread the OP to mean that s-expressions alone guaranteed hygienic macros.