2010/8/13 The Configurator <configura...@gmail.com>: > There must be great reasons why this would be horribly wrong, but why > shouldn't macros and syntaxes be passed as first class objects, method > parameters, return values etc.? > [...]
Hello, somehow I must be misunderstanding this question — in my eyes macros and syntax *are* first class objects in Racket: A macro is just a procedure operating on syntax objects and a syntax object is just an instance of a certain structure type. The distinction between a "macro" and a "regular procedure" cannot be made based on the type of the object but only based on whether it is (potentially) executed during expansion or during runtime. If the distinction between these phases was removed you would get a different programming language, but I don't think it would make any sense at all to talk about "macros" in that language. Ciao, Thomas -- When C++ is your hammer, every problem looks like your thumb. _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/users
