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)
|
Re: question on the opaque syntax object debate Panu Kalliokoski 21 Aug 2005 14:13 UTC
On Sun, Aug 21, 2005 at 05:31:29AM -0700, bear wrote: > In fact, I'll go further. If compiler/interpreter technology > advances to the point where the performance benefits (or even > just 80% or so of them) can be realized without the phase > separation, I think getting rid of phase separation entirely > would be The Right Thing for Lisp dialects. I'm not sure what exactly you refer to with "phase separation" here, but Lisp's had (macroexpand) and (macroexpand1) for ages. In fact, it bugs me that R5RS does not say when macros are expanded. For example, an implementation may freely choose to expand arguments of (eval) or not to expand them. Portability, eh? Unless I'm overlooking something. Panu -- personal contact: xxxxxx@iki.fi, +35841 5323835, +3589 85619369 work contact: xxxxxx@helsinki.fi, +35850 3678003 kotisivu (henkkoht): http://www.iki.fi/atehwa/ homepage (technical): http://sange.fi/~atehwa/