2 ms·
I guess he doesn't really know the parts when lisp macros are uncool. He even had the breaking example in his slide. The x++ part also breaks in lisp and only w
by rurban 5y ago
I guess he doesn't really know the parts when lisp macros are uncool. He even had the breaking example in his slide. The x++ part also breaks in lisp and only works in scheme, or when you have to introduce gensym into your macro. scheme macros are the real thing, but are not as simple and homomorph as lisp macros. they are more like constexpr matchers. if only we would have structural matching in our languages. and then do that at compile-time.
- dreamcompiler 5y agoUsing gensyms for single evaluation is normal for experienced Common Lisp macro writers. If you find it awkward, you can always write a macro to make it look cleaner :-)
- rurban 5y agoI'm fine with gensym and prefer it over scheme macros. But schemers have a lot to criticize on unhygienic macros.