On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 1:45 AM, Eduardo Cavazos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > OK. For what it's worth, if it complicates the implementation too much, I > wonder if it's worth it to do. Mixing frying and lambdas seems a little > strange; if you're already naming things (let, lambda, etc), you might as > well name the thing you're frying as well.
Well, language features should work together and surprises should be avoided as much as possible. > PS: I really hope cpst isn't on this list. This is just more ammo for the > leaky abstraction argument. ;-) This is a general problem with macros which change evaluation semantics; getting them to work together is not always trivial. I've added all the problems I know about to https://concatenative.org/wiki/view/Factor/To%20do/Locals. Slava ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/ _______________________________________________ Factor-talk mailing list Factor-talk@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/factor-talk
