[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: C# is not Dylan (was: Re: C# : The new language from M$)
Colin Walters <walters@cis.ohio-state.edu> wrote in message
85wvj2ymf4.fsf@meta.verbum.org">news:85wvj2ymf4.fsf@meta.verbum.org...
>>> i admit that the boilerplate mishmash of parens, braces
>>> and semicolons can help a human find their way, e.g., i
>>> think C's for (;;){} is easier than lisp's (do ()()()).
>> Yes. Finally I've met someone in the Lisp camp who
>> recognizes this feature.
> Speaking of loops, I have started using Common Lisp for some
> of my programs instead of Scheme because of its standardization
> of important things like packages, but one thing I really miss
> from Scheme is the "named let" syntax for function calls. I
> think this syntax beats both Common Lisp's `do' and `labels', as
> well as C's `for (;;) {}' construction, in terms of terseness
> and clarity. I suppose it wouldn't be hard to write a `letf'
> macro or something, though.
> If you haven't seen the Scheme "named let" before, it looks like:
[snip definition]
Unfortunately I find Scheme easily as unreadable as Lisp. As a result, I
have no tool available to evaluate the elegance of the construct you posted.
Can you do a line-by-line commentary (if you have the time) to explain: a)
how it works and b) what you find powerful in it?
Follow-Ups:
References: