Re: LFM + LFSP = LFE?

[Michael Vanier <address@hidden>]

But does anyone actually do this?  All I've ever seen is the equivalent of:

/bar/ ifTrue: foo.

[/bar/ is not legal ST, of course.]  I agree that having the control
constructs be part of the language is a big win.  A bigger issue is what's
the most effective way to do that.  ST does it by using blocks as objects;
lisp/scheme do it using macros.  ST ties you to a specific operational
model (single dispatch OO); lisp doesn't.  It's pretty trivial to implement
ST-style OO in lisp; how easy is it to implement lisp in ST?

Probably-just-as-easy-but-I've-never-tried-it-ly y'rs,

Mike

> Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 09:57:21 -0600
> From: David Farber <dfarber@numenor.com>
> 
> At 12:48 AM 6/16/2003 -0700, Ryan Davis wrote:
> >> -- perlish options to put keywords in different places
> >>    for conditionals (e.g. "foo() if /bar/")
> >
> >Personally, I like this. It allows for more English like constructs. 
> >But that is just my personal taste. If I could get rid of it, it would 
> >make my job of converting the ruby grammar easier. :)
> 
> Smalltalk, of course, allows you to do this without any extra syntax--one of the nice benefits of having the control constructs written /in/ the languge itself.
> 
> david
> 
> --
> David Farber
> dfarber@numenor.com
>