[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: macros vs. blocks
Trevor Blackwell <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> John Clements <email@example.com> writes:
> > Hmm. If you consider the three largest categories of macros [*] to be
> > 1) those that affect evaluation order (if),
> > 2) those that introduce literal data (quote), and
> > 3) those that introduce bindings (let),
> > I don't see how block notation solves any other than category (1).
> I would refine my macros-are-useless claim a bit: languages that already
> have syntax for things such as assignment, variable declaration, and
> quoted data (Python, Perl, Smalltalk, ...) don't benefit much from
> Using macros for #2 is probably a bad idea. I think it's generally
> clearer to include the ' symbol (or whatever your favorite language
> uses) than to have some arguments be magically quoted.
> Using macros for #3 is also usually a bad idea. Having macros like CL
> (do) or (while), which magically introduce a variable with non-obvious
> scoping, is hazardous. I'd rather just have one way of declaring
> control-structure variables, like Smalltalk:
A simple example that does #2 and #3 together is BRL's inputs syntax.
(inputs foo bar baz)
is equivalent to CGI.pm's
Scheme is a language where a variable's name generally doesn't matter at
run time. However, macros that do #2 and #3 together can change it into
a language where the variable's name does matter, and there are times
where that's convenient.
<brlewis@[(if (brl-related? message) ; Bruce R. Lewis
"users.sourceforge.net" ; http://brl.codesimply.net/