question on the opaque syntax object debate Andrew Wilcox (18 Aug 2005 15:58 UTC)
Re: question on the opaque syntax object debate Andre van Tonder (18 Aug 2005 16:59 UTC)
Re: question on the opaque syntax object debate Jens Axel Søgaard (21 Aug 2005 10:16 UTC)
Re: question on the opaque syntax object debate Michael Sperber (20 Aug 2005 06:50 UTC)
Re: question on the opaque syntax object debate Matthias Neubauer (20 Aug 2005 13:19 UTC)
Re: question on the opaque syntax object debate Andre van Tonder (20 Aug 2005 19:48 UTC)
Re: question on the opaque syntax object debate Michael Sperber (21 Aug 2005 09:50 UTC)
Re: question on the opaque syntax object debate Panu Kalliokoski (21 Aug 2005 14:14 UTC)
Re: question on the opaque syntax object debate Michael Sperber (22 Aug 2005 16:00 UTC)

Re: question on the opaque syntax object debate Michael Sperber 20 Aug 2005 06:50 UTC

Andrew Wilcox <xxxxxx@andrewwilcox.name> writes:

> I'm excited to see the unification which allows the standard list
> procedures (CAR, CDR, CONS) to work on syntax objects while retaining
> hygiene.

Just out of curiosity---from this statement, and more like it on this
list, I'm getting the vague impression that people regard using lists
to represent compound syntax as something new.  (Of course, Scheme
macro systems have been doing that forever.)  Am I misunderstanding
the vibes here?

--
Cheers =8-} Mike
Friede, Völkerverständigung und überhaupt blabla