Lynn Winebarger scripsit: > I'd like to clarify this, because I used "static" in an odd way. What I > meant was something akin to "syntactic".
Thanks for the very interesting explanation/account. > For example, in Scheme, almost all types of values are constructable in > the syntax, either at the lexical level (numbers, symbols, vectors, etc) > or have constructors in the syntax (lambda). I point this out because > even though most data types have operators and constructors that are > purely procedural, they are part of the language at a syntactic level > as well. Unless you object, I'll steal this as part of my justification for extensible syntax and record printing. > Macros allow us to reflect procedures into the parsing phase. Although it's true that high-level macros can be and are translated into Scheme code, I think it's questionable whether they "reflect procedures" in the sense you mean. Certainly low-level macros (hygienic or not) do so. -- John Cowan <[email protected]> http://www.ccil.org/~cowan .e'osai ko sarji la lojban. Please support Lojban! http://www.lojban.org _______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
