|
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