Hi Elena, I thinks the Lisp convention says something about how to think about Lisp programs. Well-written macros shouldn't require you to think about the fact that they are macros.
Instead of thinking about functions calls vs. macro calls, try to think of "forms". A form can be a function call (+ x y), a macro (and x y), or a special form (if x y z). The choice of function/macro is really just an implementation detail. What matters is what the form does, and what it returns. -Stuart Sierra On Mar 4, 8:03 pm, Elena <egarr...@gmail.com> wrote: > I wonder if Clojure does employ the same syntax either for macros and > functions by design or it's just a remainder of Lisp. I think that a > shared syntax for both macros and functions calls is a flaw in the > syntax of Lisps, because you can't tell, just by looking at a form, > which expressions get evaluated and which don't, at least when you are > dealing with side effects. > > Someone says that when you are reading code you are expected to know > the documentation of each form you encounter, but I don't agree. > Usually when I read code I rely heavily on good naming, so I don't > usually need to reach for the documentation. > > Since I'm a C/C++ programmer, my convention is that macros and only > macros are all uppercase, so I can easily spot them and be aware that > they behave differently. > > What do you think? > Thanks --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
