Grant Rettke scripsit: > Regardless of their intent then, today I feel like hygienic macros are > a no-brainer for "programming in the large" when you have macros that > rely on macros that rely on macros...
Agreed. > Perhaps they should add defmacro or something similar; if the users > want it then why not. For the same reason that nobody is going to add dynamic binding of procedure parameters, even if the users want it. If they want Common Lisp, they know where to find it: any of six major open-source implementations (ABCL, CCL, CLISP, CMUCL, ECL, and SBCL), all highly conformant to ANSI CL, which (at 1100+ pages) makes the 187 pages of R6RS look small. For further comparison, Common Lisp specifies 987 symbols, of which 9 are unbound (e.g. lambda-list keywords), and 37 are bound in two different namespaces (e.g. "t", which is both a constant and a class name), for a total of 1015 bindings, about 48% more than R6RS. -- John Cowan http://ccil.org/~cowan [email protected] SAXParserFactory [is] a hideous, evil monstrosity of a class that should be hung, shot, beheaded, drawn and quartered, burned at the stake, buried in unconsecrated ground, dug up, cremated, and the ashes tossed in the Tiber while the complete cast of Wicked sings "Ding dong, the witch is dead." --Elliotte Rusty Harold on xml-dev _______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
