Steven D'Aprano wrote: > On Sat, 09 Dec 2006 14:55:13 -0800, Paul Rubin wrote: > > >>Steven D'Aprano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >>>Now, if you want to tell me that, despite all the talk, Lisp coders don't >>>actually create new syntax or mini-languages all that often, that they >>>just use macros as functions, then the question becomes: why do you need >>>macros then if you are just using them as functions? Why not use functions? >> >>Macros let you write what amounts to functions that don't evaluate >>their arguments. Think of the endless clpy wars over the ternary >>conditional operator. > > [snip] > >>That is trivial to do with a macro > > > I know that. It was more of a rhetorical question -- Lispers are either > trying to emphasis the radical nature of what you can do with macros, or > understate it and make them seem just like functions.
Yep, both. The first is rare. CLOS is one, my Cells (ported this summer to PyCells as part of SoC 2006) is another. The latter is the norm. ken -- Algebra: http://www.tilton-technology.com/LispNycAlgebra1.htm "Well, I've wrestled with reality for thirty-five years, Doctor, and I'm happy to state I finally won out over it." -- Elwood P. Dowd "I'll say I'm losing my grip, and it feels terrific." -- Smiling husband to scowling wife, New Yorker cartoon -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
