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 Michael Sperber 13 Aug 2005 12:33 UTC

Keith Wright <xxxxxx@free-comp-shop.com> writes:

> In my opinion, the great beauty of this SRFI is that it
> makes syntax into a list of identifiers so that we can
> write macros with map, caddar, reverse, etc...
> I _don't_ want to learn a whole new set, and re-write
> all my utility list handing procedures as syntax transformers.

Sure you gain convenience.  As with a lot of other conveniences in
programming, you lose abstraction.  Using symbols to represent
identifiers is also convenient, but considered a bad idea by many for
the same reasons.  The problem is that once abstraction is lost, you
can't regain it.  You *can* regain the convenience.

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