> "Keith" == Keith Wansbrough <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Keith> Jerzy Karczmarczuk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Macros in Scheme are used to unfold n-ary control structures such as COND
>> into a hierarchy of IFs, etc. Nothing (in principle) to do with laziness
>> or HO functions.
Keith>
Keith Wansbrough quotes :
>
> Jerzy Karczmarczuk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Macros in Scheme are used to unfold n-ary control structures such as COND
> > into a hierarchy of IFs, etc. Nothing (in principle) to do with laziness
> > or HO functions.
>
> Isn't this exactly the reason that m
On 04-May-2001, Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jerzy Karczmarczuk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> pisze:
>
> > In Clean there are macros. They are rather infrequently used...
>
> I think they roughly correspond to inline functions in Haskell.
>
> They are separate in Clean because m
Fri, 04 May 2001 12:57:29 +0200, Jerzy Karczmarczuk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> pisze:
> In Clean there are macros. They are rather infrequently used...
I think they roughly correspond to inline functions in Haskell.
They are separate in Clean because module interfaces are written
by hand, so the user
Jerzy Karczmarczuk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Macros in Scheme are used to unfold n-ary control structures such as COND
> into a hierarchy of IFs, etc. Nothing (in principle) to do with laziness
> or HO functions.
Isn't this exactly the reason that macros are less necessary in lazy languages?
Discussion about macros, Lisp, laziness etc. Too many people to cite.
Alan Bawden uses macros to write assertions, and Dylan Thurston comments:
...
> > (assert (< x 3))
> >
> > Which macro expands into:
> >
> > (if (not (< x 3))
> > (assertion-failed '(< x 3)))
> >
> > Where `assertion
