Does this clarify the point I was making?
When writing macros, you cannot dynamically build one of the syntactic
sugar forms. For example, you cannot write a macro that expands cls
and member into (cls/member):
(defmacro call-static [cls member] `(~cls/~member))
-
Thanks Mark, Chouser,
I will update that section of the book with a corrected example in
Beta 7.
Cheers,
Stuart
On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 11:26 AM, Mark Volkmann
r.mark.volkm...@gmail.com wrote:
Now I remember what I was thinking about. This isn't so much a
difference between macros and
Marde, Feb 3, 2009 at 14:24, Konrad Hinsen konrad.hin...@laposte.net skribis:
[...]
I can't think of anything that would be forbidden in a macro but
allowed in a plain function. There are many things that don't make
sense in a macro, of course: launching agents, opening windows, ...
Well, for
Personally I find that the clearest way to think about macros, is to
treat them like a *very* advanced search-and-replace feature.
Just keep in mind that macros expand into code, and check to make sure
that your generated code is indeed valid code.
I just wanted to point out that ' is syntactic sugar for (quote) not (list).
(list) will evaluate your arguments, where as '() will not. So if you try to
use them interchangeable you'll run into trouble.
user (list 1 2 (+ 1 2))
(1 2 3)
user '(1 2 (+ 1 2))
(1 2 (+ 1 2))
Its a pretty common lisp
On Feb 3, 2009, at 14:49, Mark Volkmann wrote:
I see from the feedback so far that my statements are wrong. However,
I think it's true that there are *some* things you can do in a
function that you cannot do in a macro, and perhaps vice-versa. Are
those clearly documented anywhere? If not,
On Feb 4, 12:01 am, Mark Volkmann r.mark.volkm...@gmail.com wrote:
Are the following statements true? They aren't discussed
athttp://clojure.org/macros, but I think they are true.
Macros cannot call other macros during their evaluation, but they can
expand to code that calls macros.
I
On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 8:24 AM, Konrad Hinsen konrad.hin...@laposte.net wrote:
On Feb 3, 2009, at 14:49, Mark Volkmann wrote:
I see from the feedback so far that my statements are wrong. However,
I think it's true that there are *some* things you can do in a
function that you cannot do in a
On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 11:26 AM, Mark Volkmann
r.mark.volkm...@gmail.com wrote:
Now I remember what I was thinking about. This isn't so much a
difference between macros and functions as it is a rule about
something you cannot do in a macro. Quoting from Programming Clojure
...
You cannot
Hi!
Am 03.02.2009 um 17:26 schrieb Mark Volkmann:
On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 8:24 AM, Konrad Hinsen konrad.hin...@laposte.net
wrote:
On Feb 3, 2009, at 14:49, Mark Volkmann wrote:
I see from the feedback so far that my statements are wrong.
However,
I think it's true that there are
Mark Volkmann wrote:
I see from the feedback so far that my statements are wrong. However,
I think it's true that there are *some* things you can do in a
function that you cannot do in a macro, and perhaps vice-versa. Are
those clearly documented anywhere? If not, what are some?
You might
On Feb 3, 2009, at 14:01, Mark Volkmann wrote:
Are the following statements true? They aren't discussed at
http://clojure.org/macros, but I think they are true.
Macros cannot call other macros during their evaluation, but they can
expand to code that calls macros.
Macros can certainly
12 matches
Mail list logo
