Andre van Tonder <xxxxxx@later.het.brown.edu> writes:

>  Mike Sperber wrote:
>
>  > To make it work efficiently, you'd have
>  > to bring weakness in---a lot of machinery to duplicate functionality
>  > that would trivially work if syntax objects were abstract and thus
>  > extensible.
>
>  I would differ on "trivially" ;-)  Reading through the psyntax implementation,
>  I think complexity would be pretty much conserved no matter how you do it.

I'm not sure I understand: Last I looked, the psyntax implementation
had no source-location tracking at all.  Also, I don't think Chez's
implementation tracks the location of compound expressions.  How does
this allow you inferences about the complexity of implementing it?

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