On Dec 19, 2:05 pm, Stuart Halloway <[email protected]> wrote:
> According to Paul Graham's On Lisp, macroexpanders should be purely
> functional, and you should not count on how often a macro gets
> expanded. This seems like a reasonable restriction for Clojure too.
> However, Chouser posted an example that shows the expansion of proxy
> does have a side effect [2].
>
> Should macros written by ordinary mortals follow PG's rule?
Yes.
> If not,
> should this be listed as a difference from other Lisps at [3]?
>
No. There's no significant difference between CL and Clojure in this
area.
No one should come to rely on the implementation details of proxy or
gen-class.
Rich
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Clojure" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
