This example comes out of a real problem I have, it is not artificial (it may not be good rebol however ).
Parens are also used to prioritize calculus, so every time I want to build a function block, there is a clash between priorities parens and compose parens. -- henri On 11/26/05, Volker Nitsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 11/26/05, Henri Morlaye <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Hello, > > Am I the only one who find the lispy backquote macros better than the > > COMPOSE function ? > > > > for example: > > `[ ,value1 to-string ( to-integer ,value2 ) + 2 ) ] > > instead of: > > compose/deep [ (value1) to-string (to-paren reduce[ to-paren reduce [ > > 'to-integer (value2) ] + 2 ] ] > > > > Why is it so ? > > Because you used an artificial example? > Parens *are* the backquotes of rebol. > What happens if you want to backquote backquotes in lisp? > (I admit in some cases, like composing parse-rules, your example makes > sens=3D > e.). > > > -- > > henri > > -- > > To unsubscribe from the list, just send an email to > > lists at rebol.com with unsubscribe as the subject. > > > > > > > -- > -Volker > > "Any problem in computer science can be solved with another layer of > indirection. But that usually will create another problem." David > Wheeler > -- > To unsubscribe from the list, just send an email to > lists at rebol.com with unsubscribe as the subject. > > -- To unsubscribe from the list, just send an email to lists at rebol.com with unsubscribe as the subject.
