On Aug 28, 2008, at 3:26 PM, Ingvar von Schoultz wrote:
Macros and functions are very, very different. My proposal
has only regular, run-of-the-mill functions. They don't have
"do have", right?
parentheses around the arguments, but this detail doesn't
make them in any way related to macros and their problems.
If you mean hygiene, that is not a practical problem so much as a
theoretical one. Dave knows a lot about this topic, so I'll defer to
him.
I find it disconcerting that this list will so easily brush off
proposals with some vague comment about something never proposed.
Please cut the "this list" collective guilt assignment. Felix
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> replied identifying your idea with Python
decorators, and you did not reply to him. Was his reply either
disconcerting or a brush-off? No. Keep your arguments with
individuals focused on individuals with whom you have a bone to pick,
or better yet, avoid ad hominem (ad listinem ;-) arguments altogether.
/be
Ingvar
Ingvar von Schoultz wrote:
Dave Herman wrote:
The following would let people create syntax sugar for their
favorite paradigms.
I really have to suggest you learn about macros before trying to
reinvent them. This reading list is a good start:
http://library.readscheme.org/page3.html
The idea is to avoid the unsolved problems of macro hygiene.
That's why the arrangement has only function calls, no macros.
_______________________________________________
Es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
_______________________________________________
Es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
