[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: contractual programming
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re: contractual programming
- From: Jeff Dalton <email@example.com>
- Date: Wed, 21 Oct 92 18:40:29 BST
> What I would prefer is a macro model that works harmoniously with the
> module mechanism...and that's the difficulty. Unfortunately the
> "macros that work" model doesn't seem to hold up in this context.
> Also, I and others that I have talked to don't want to be restricted
> to syntax-rules style definitions, but rather want to be able to write
> arbitrary expander functions. The difficulty is in making the use of
> the macro transparent to the client...which is why the principle of
> the syntactic closure offers promise. The EuLisp group have been
> working on this issue for a couple of years (but only part-time) and
> although we hve come near to a reasonable solution, it breaks down
> with macro generating macros.
Some of the recent Scheme solutions look fairly reasonable, though
I still feel I need more experience with them before I can say whether
they do what I want.
What is it that's wrong with "macros that work", by the way?
Do they break down in more cases than the Common Lisp approach?