In my own scheme-esque language, I have tried hooking up extra-concise means not only for lambdas, but for "anonymous macros" too. (Yes, the readability of the

In my own scheme-esque language, I have tried hooking up extra-concise means not only for lambdas, but for "anonymous macros" too. (Yes, the readability of the resulting code is very suspect. Just experimenting!) # Provide a prefix syntax that constructs a unary procedure from just a body. (extend-parser "^" (mac (x) `(proc (?) ,x))) # Provide a prefix syntax that constructs a unary macro from just a body. (extend-parser "%" (mac (x) `(mac (?) ,x))) # Apply an anonymous macro to 4, resulting in definitions for cad{1,4}r # being generated then evaluated: ( %`(seq ~(map ^(let i (codepoint-count ?) sym (string-to (sprint "ca" ? "r")) `(def ,sym (proc (xs) (ith-element ,i xs)))) (map ^(apply sprint (repeat "d" ?)) (range 1 ?)))) 4) # What ended up being evaluated at the top-level: # (seq (def cadr (proc (xs) (ith-element 1 xs))) # (def caddr (proc (xs) (ith-element 2 xs))) # (def cadddr (proc (xs) (ith-element 3 xs))) # (def caddddr (proc (xs) (ith-element 4 xs))))