Aubrey Jaffer scripsit: > Although the motivation for Scheme macros may have been to reduce the > number of primitive forms, its effect has been the proliferation of > mutually incomprehensible language dialects, as though R5RS was not > sufficient in itself for all varieties of programming.
The "Subtract one from data location N and if it becomes zero jump to program location J" machine is also sufficient in itself for all varieties of programming. > Using the same mechanism for Report mandated syntactic forms and user > macros means that macro-expanding an expression is likely to return a > bloated, unrecognizable mess. In contrast, macroexpand in CommonLisp > is useful because it leaves special forms alone, expanding only the > macros. Technically yes, but most of the non-procedures defined in Common Lisp are already macros. -- Principles. You can't say A is John Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> made of B or vice versa. All mass http://www.ccil.org/~cowan is interaction. --Richard Feynman _______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
