On Sep 10, Brian Harvey wrote:
>
> I worry about trying to get people who aren't programming languge
> experts to love a language with these esoterica. [...]
I don't see macros as something hard or esoteric. It's "just" another
datatype. When you use macros you certainly move from the "just
another hacker" category to the "language designer" one, but that
shouldn't be surprising.
> But when you say that I can't think of symbols as identifiers /even
> when I don't write macros/ I worry that there is no way to learn
> this language if you're not already expert in it!
If you don't write macros then you certainly don't have to think about
identifiers at all. Of course you can still have identifiers if
you're implementing an evaluator -- but those can be anything you
want; for example, you can easily take your favorite (meta circular)
evaluator and use strings as the identifiers.
--
((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x))) Eli Barzilay:
http://barzilay.org/ Maze is Life!
_______________________________________________
r6rs-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
