On 05.03.2009, at 02:03, Elena wrote:
I wonder if Clojure does employ the same syntax either for macros and
functions by design or it's just a remainder of Lisp. I think that a
I am sure it's by design, just as for Lisp. Remember that Lisp has
been around for 50 years and has been used by
expressions get evaluated and which don't, at least when you are dealing
with side effects.
I think that this is the key point. The Clojure syntax is built around its
pure-functional core. Side effects are dangerous, and the rule there is
mutator beware.
Joshua
On 5 Mar, 02:22, Matt Revelle mreve...@gmail.com wrote:
Was their a situation where not knowing if a form was a macro bit
you? Considering that many frequently used built-ins
are implemented as macros, capitalizing or otherwise annotating-in-
name would be annoying.
No. What bothers me is
(Warning: long post)
Thank you all for the answers, especially to Konrad who suggested
thinking in terms of forms instead of functions and macros. He's right
that I'm a newcomer and maybe I've rushed a bit by calling it a flaw.
I'll try thinking about it more.
As I started to learn Lisp, the
FWIW:
I have thought the same thing in the past. But, in practice, this has
never been a problem for me. Not once. Now I haven't written
quadrillions of lines of Lisp, but it doesn't seem to have been a
problem for those who have either.
One thing to keep in mind is that you don't typically
I wonder if Clojure does employ the same syntax either for macros and
functions by design or it's just a remainder of Lisp. I think that a
shared syntax for both macros and functions calls is a flaw in the
syntax of Lisps, because you can't tell, just by looking at a form,
which expressions get
On Mar 4, 2009, at 8:03 PM, Elena wrote:
I wonder if Clojure does employ the same syntax either for macros and
functions by design or it's just a remainder of Lisp. I think that a
shared syntax for both macros and functions calls is a flaw in the
syntax of Lisps, because you can't tell,
I think that a
shared syntax for both macros and functions calls is a flaw in the
syntax of Lisps, because you can't tell, just by looking at a form,
which expressions get evaluated and which don't, at least when you are
dealing with side effects.
You might want to think about macros such
Hi Elena,
I thinks the Lisp convention says something about how to think about
Lisp programs. Well-written macros shouldn't require you to think
about the fact that they are macros.
Instead of thinking about functions calls vs. macro calls, try to
think of forms. A form can be a function call
