[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Dylan Constants
- To: email@example.com (Rich Duncan)
- Subject: Re: Dylan Constants
- From: Bob Kerns <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Thu, 22 Oct 92 07:12:13 -0400
- Cc: Scott_Fahlman@SEF1.SLISP.CS.CMU.EDU, info-dylan@CAMBRIDGE.APPLE.COM
- In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 21 Oct 92 08:57:30 EDT." <email@example.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 1992 08:57:30 EDT
From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Rich Duncan)
>The Dylan people at Apple have indicated that this will be fixed. I don't
>know if they've yet settled on a choice of syntax, but I believe the
>current plan is that *all* the "define" forms will produce constants, and
>some new form will be created for defining non-constant variables.
Probably a good choice since that will make DEFINE semantically closer
to #DEFINE in C and %REPLACE in PL/I.
I'm not sure what you think #define does, or what you think
DEFINE does, or what bit of the semantics you're comparing,
but in my ontology this doesn't compute.
You can re-#define #define's; they're not constant at all.
They perform semi-syntactic argument substitution, preserving
semantics not one whit, and often doing violence to the syntax.
It seems that instead this makes it closer to 'enum'.
I would hope that Dylan never does anything even vaguely resembling
the non-semantics of #define!