> Ok, makes sense. For what it’s worth (I’m very new at Julia, but have > been using Lisp/Scheme/Clojure for a while now)… In Lisp/Clojure I > think there’s a preference even for internal function definitions to > use macros vs eval for the reason that macros modify the source at > parse time, but eval will only have its effect once interpretation has > begun. This distinction can be important for tools that operate on > code (linters, static analyzers, and such).
Interesting, not sure what Lint.jl prefers. In Base, the style is to use eval in such situations. > On September 3, 2015 at 10:34:27, Mauro (mauro...@runbox.com) wrote: > >> Out of curiosity, why use `@eval` directly instead of defining a >> macro? (I’m just trying to get a better feel for what’s more Julian.) > > Generally: > Use eval when you want to generate code at a particular location. > Conversely, macros are used if you want to provide a way for your users > to generate code in a certain way (that you specify) in their own code. > >> On September 2, 2015 at 12:44:39, Patrick Kofod Mogensen >> (patrick.mogen...@gmail.com) wrote: >> >> I'm in a train right now, but yes. Look up metaprogramming in the docs, or >> look at the blog entry on refactoring code in Twitter.jl >> http://randyzwitch.com/julia-metaprogramming-refactoring
