Re: macros vs. blocks

[Daniel Weinreb <address@hidden>]

Sundar Narasimhan wrote:

>>Rather, the problem with LOOP was that it turned out to be
>>hard to predict what it would do, when you started using a
>>lot of different facets of LOOP all together.  
>>
>I'd agree w/ this. Is the problem of using different facets together
>related to the fact that some use positional arguments, others use
>keywords and 
>
No, the problem with using different facets together didn't actually 
have anything
much to do with the keyword/positional business.  It was at a deeper 
semantic
level than that.  I think it had to do with things like the order in 
which various
subforms were evaluated, and the environment (which variables are bound
to which values) in which they were evaluated.

>-- here's my tool-support peeve -- ctrl-shift-A almost
>never does anything useful w/ such complex macros, so you are
>constantly having to look things up? (Almost as complex as the new
>Perl6 pattern proposal perhaps? :)
>
It's true that extending the syntax at LOOP did meant introducing new 
stuff that the
editor-based tools didn't understand.  The auto-indenter did work, 
though; that was
a sine qua non.

>
>
>a. If you could summarize options that were considered wrt. LOOP, that
>might be useful. (I wonder for example, if separation, or an ordered
>separation of the facets was considered).
>
Unfortunately, it's been too many years and I don't remember it that 
well.  I bet Moon either
remembers or could figure it out again, if you really want to know.