Re: Procedures make me mad

[Dorai Sitaram <address@hidden>]

Since it seems fairly obvious that Todd meant "mere
function" to mean "mere procedure" (not the
side-effect-free kind), this particular macro
call by Guy seems to be rejecting mere procedures in
favor of mere procedures?

Intentional bit of absurdity?  Or, more
mundanely, a macro bug?

(If the latter, perhaps this kind of susceptibility to
bugs is what incenses Todd so about macros.)



Geoffrey Knauth wrote
> 
> In a world without macros, we get 3 emails instead of 1.
> 
> [Guy Steele wrote]
> 
> > Despite the fact that many folks I respect swear by procedures, I've 
> > yet to
> > feel comfortable with them in a language.  Since LL2, I've been trying
> > to figure out what my resistance is based on.
> >
> > Let me say that I think that procedures are beautiful and powerful and 
> > all
> > those good things.  Let's not quibble about that.
> >
> > Defining a procedure is often an act of defining a language construct 
> > and
> > implementing it.  Reasonably or not, I hold language constructs to a
> > higher standard than, say, a mere function definition.