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
bear
(20 Aug 2005 19:24 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
bear
(21 Aug 2005 12:31 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)
|
Michael Sperber <xxxxxx@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de> writes: > 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? I don't get it either. I, for my part, I'm rather underwhelmed ... This all seems to bring us back to the "good old times" where there was no real separation between code and data---this time, it just happens "one stage further up" ... -Matthias -- Matthias Neubauer | Universität Freiburg, Institut für Informatik | tel +49 761 203 8060 Georges-Köhler-Allee 79, 79110 Freiburg i. Br., Germany | fax +49 761 203 8052