No. Our macros are procedural, meaning you often write functions that manipulate syntax.
We now have define-for-syntax for this purpose and people should use it, not write one huge 'lambda' inside of define-syntax (parse, case, rules). On Oct 6, 2012, at 11:28 AM, Lorenz Köhl wrote: > There's this paragraph in the style guide I don't understand: > >> For many years we had a limited syntax transformation language that forced >> people to create huge functions. This is no longer the case, so we should >> try to stick to the rule whenever possible. > From http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/matthias/Style/style/Units_of_Code.html > section 3.2 paragraph five > > Shouldn't it say macros instead of function? What did the limited > syntax transformation language do to function definitions? > > Lo > ____________________ > Racket Users list: > http://lists.racket-lang.org/users ____________________ Racket Users list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
