[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]


  I never claimed that writing code with massive numbers of a's and d's was
good.  I don't think it is, and I never do it. However, I do write programs
which generate programs which create long c*r names.  I don't have to 
worry that only 4 a's and d's are allowed (as I believe is the case
in macsyma and lisp machine lisp).   The point is: the meaning of 
consecutive a's and d's are clearly defined in the Franz lisp manual, 
supported by both the Franz interpreter and compiler.  I am proud of the
uniformity but no where in the manual do I encourage people to use large
strings of a's and d's.  However if they want to hang themselves, they
are welcome to.
  As for kmp's data abstraction example, I am sure that he would have
done the same thing if he had been able to string as many a's and d's
together as he wished, the only difference is that his macro would
have been easier to write and understand, imagine someone who
has just read a book on lisp asking himself why this expression
was written this way instead of (caddddddr x).