loss of abstraction Andrew Wilcox (22 Aug 2005 15:46 UTC)
Re: loss of abstraction Michael Sperber (22 Aug 2005 16:09 UTC)
(missing)
(missing)
Re: loss of abstraction bear (23 Aug 2005 18:37 UTC)
(missing)
(missing)
Re: loss of abstraction Andre van Tonder (23 Aug 2005 15:08 UTC)
Re: loss of abstraction Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk (23 Aug 2005 15:54 UTC)
Re: loss of abstraction Andre van Tonder (23 Aug 2005 16:19 UTC)
Re: loss of abstraction Andre van Tonder (23 Aug 2005 15:55 UTC)

Re: loss of abstraction Michael Sperber 22 Aug 2005 16:09 UTC

Andrew Wilcox <xxxxxx@andrewwilcox.name> writes:

> But let me ask.  Suppose you are using a typical Scheme implementation
> in which CAR and CDR operate only on plain pairs.  You are then
> constrained to implement compound syntax objects as lists.  You have
> lost the ability to use some other abstraction.  As a practical
> matter, what impact does that have on you?  What would you like to be
> able to do with a syntax object abstraction that you'd not be able to
> do if you've lost that abstraction?

Change its representation.

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