Alaric Snell-Pym scripsit: > In effect, you're not all *that* keen on macros, I guess. I certainly > agree that it's easy to overuse them; certainly, any problem that can > be well solved with only higher-order functions and other such tools > should be, rather than going to macros (which aren't first-class, for > a start).
+1. I am not against macros, merely against their injudicious use. > But I'm interested in PL research; I'd quite like to write entire new > languages as Scheme macros whose expanders are basically a "compiler > into Scheme", so that I can embed them in Scheme code and intermingle > them, thereby using whatever language is best for the problem at hand. Whereas I'd much rather write an interpreter in Scheme. > What does this mean for us, at an impasse arguing about what the > correct level of power (and, thus, burden of responsibility) to give > the programmer? > > Give them options! "An admirable outcome, were this world one Fastness of the Handdara [Zen/Taoist monastery, more or less], but alas, we must walk forward troubling the new snow, proving and disproving, asking and answering." --Le Guin, _The Left Hand of Darkness_ Or in this case, standardizing. Which means preferring some things over others. -- John Cowan [email protected] "You need a change: try Canada" "You need a change: try China" --fortune cookies opened by a couple that I know _______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
