On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 5:14 PM, Meikel Brandmeyer<m...@kotka.de> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Am 13.08.2009 um 22:30 schrieb Brian Hurt:
>
>> Now, I can certainly see a lot of potiential downsides to this.
>> Redefining what #{} or #() means is just the start.
>
> I think, this is the reason Rich is not very positive for that idea: because
> nobody came up with a way of defining "namespaces" for reader macros, so
> that they don't interfere with each other.
>
>> But it'd make it a lot easier to do things with DSLs.
>
> I'm happy with macros for DSLs. Actually the macros just quasiquote their
> arguments and pass them on to actual functions.
>
>> So, what are people's thoughts?
>
> I've yet to see the desire for a self-defined reader macro. But I'm no
> Common Lisper (a Schemer actually). So I'm not used to reader macros. Maybe
> I'm missing the paradise.
>
> I'm not necessarily opposed to the idea. But I wouldn't give it high
> priority either.
>
> Sincerely
> Meikel
>
>
Would it make any difference if the scope of the reader macro was
limited to the file which defines/uses it? Any file that wanted to
use a custom reader macro would then have to add its own
(use-reader-macro ...) statements, and there'd be no possibility for
conflicts.
Something like:
(defn comment-block-begin []
"Dispatch function for beginning of block comments")
(use-reader-macro '#| comment-block-begin)
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your
first post.
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
