"mystilleef" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Any sizable Lisp applications will make extensive use of macros. Emacs > and magic ( the web framework) come to mind.
$ cat `find /usr/share/emacs/ -name '*.el' -print ` | grep defmacro | wc -l 1393 $ cat `find /usr/share/emacs/ -name '*.el' -print ` | grep defun | wc -l 29244 So it looks like there's one macro for every twenty-one functions. That doesn't seem too extensive, nor too scarce. > My experience has shown that nobody but the person who writes the DSL > extension can maintain their code. Emacs has been used for almost thirty years now, by tens (hundreds?) of thousands of programmers, and extended by almost every one of them. > The benefits of extending a language in a domain specific manner are > exaggerated. Certainly they seem useful to the authors of such packages as BBDB and emacs-w3m. -- Robert Uhl <http://public.xdi.org/=ruhl> As a client for MS Exchange, MS Outlook is quite good. As an Internet e-mail client [e.g, POP3/IMAP], it's roughly equivalent to strapping a few pounds of plastique to your gonads and painting a day-glo orange bulls-eye on your knickers. -- Morely Dotes in nan-ae -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list