The point that I am trying to make is that there are things that are easy with macros but difficult with just procedures. Or were you asking Phil, who was the one to mention Pascal?
Of course, in a language like LISP where you can build code on the fly, things are different. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 ________________________________________ From: IBM Mainframe Assembler List [[email protected]] on behalf of zMan [[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2023 11:30 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: looking for limbo languages - how low can you go? Pascal? That language that's widely used and available on every platform? Oh, wait... Seriously, I'm not sure what point you were trying to make? On Tue, Jul 18, 2023 at 7:54 PM Seymour J Metz <[email protected]> wrote: > That approach doesn't work well for, e.g., decision-table macros, > report-generator macros. > > > -- > Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz > http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3 > > ________________________________________ > From: IBM Mainframe Assembler List [[email protected]] on > behalf of Paul Gilmartin [[email protected]] > Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2023 7:13 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: looking for limbo languages - how low can you go? > > On 7/18/23 15:10:47, Phil Smith III wrote: > > Rick wrote about C and its power. As he noted, I *was* referring to the > macro language/preprocessor when I said "pathetic". Because it is. It's old > enough that it really should be more mature. > > Pascal has no macros. > > If the language is (FSVO) sufficiently complete it shouldn't need > them. Perhaps expanding subroutines inline for optimization. > > -- > gil > -- zMan -- "I've got a mainframe and I'm not afraid to use it"
