Opaque syntax objects
Michael Sperber
(12 Aug 2005 15:18 UTC)
|
Re: Opaque syntax objects felix winkelmann (12 Aug 2005 20:22 UTC)
|
Re: Opaque syntax objects
Jens Axel Søgaard
(12 Aug 2005 23:20 UTC)
|
Re: Opaque syntax objects
Andre van Tonder
(13 Aug 2005 00:25 UTC)
|
Re: Opaque syntax objects
Michael Sperber
(13 Aug 2005 07:46 UTC)
|
Re: Opaque syntax objects
Jens Axel Søgaard
(14 Aug 2005 19:45 UTC)
|
Re: Opaque syntax objects
Andre van Tonder
(14 Aug 2005 20:22 UTC)
|
Re: Opaque syntax objects
bear
(14 Aug 2005 17:48 UTC)
|
Re: Opaque syntax objects
Keith Wright
(13 Aug 2005 07:31 UTC)
|
Re: Opaque syntax objects
Michael Sperber
(13 Aug 2005 12:33 UTC)
|
Re: Opaque syntax objects
Jens Axel Søgaard
(14 Aug 2005 20:27 UTC)
|
Re: Opaque syntax objects felix winkelmann 12 Aug 2005 20:21 UTC
On 8/12/05, Michael Sperber <xxxxxx@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de> wrote: > > The issue has come up in the discussion, but hasn't really been in the > focus yet: > > I'd like to suggest that compound expressions be represented by an > opaque type rather than by pairs. This would ensure a modicum of > abstraction, and would *really* make comprehensive the ability of all > syntax objects to carry location information. I've come to appreciate > this added layer of abstraction in PLT Scheme. > But wouldn't this completely break the (IMHO) rather practical ability to destructure arguments passed to macros via normal Scheme operators? What I like about srfi-72 is that I can write hygienic macros with (nearly) the same ease as in conventional Lisp-/quasiquote-style. In fact this is what I consider the most innovative feature for SRFI-72. cheers, felix