Re: are dylan macros Turing-complete?

[Andreas Bogk <address@hidden>]

Colin Walters <walters@debian.org> writes:

> Ok, I understand that.  I just wanted to make sure that it was in fact
> not part of the standard; this is a large conceptual difference
> between Lisp macros and Dylan macros.

In fact, the big difference between Lisp macros and Dylan macros is
that Dylan is infix.  Not supporting procedural macros was an
arbitrary design choice, and Functional Developer acutally mostly
consists of procedural macros.  Procedural macros, together with
method combination, are on my wish list for a hypthetical Dylan-NG.

I think the big news of the Dylan macro system is showing that
powerful macros and infix syntax do not contradict each other.

Andreas

-- 
"In my eyes it is never a crime to steal knowledge. It is a good
theft. The pirate of knowledge is a good pirate."
                                                       (Michel Serres)