Earlier I said > It's so that clever compiler > people can define an incomprehensible language that only they can use
Bear has convinced me that "incomprehensible" wasn't very polite. I should know better than to post in a hurry, and I apologize. Of course what I really should have said is that /I/ have trouble understanding this multi-phase view of Scheme programs, and so in sheer self-interest I have to beg that future Schemes (at least WG1 Schemes) not be designed in a way that I'm not smart enough to use. I should not have hidden my own ignorance and/or stupidity behind the rhetorical stance that most everyone is like me! No, I'm not being sarcastic. I mean it. But I do think there are /some/ other people like me, and I want a Scheme for us. (And, no, I'm not suggesting that all who view themselves as future WG1 users are stupid, either! :-) I confess to still feeling that the simple-REPL model is /more beautiful/ than the multi-phase model, and that therefore WG1 Scheme is going to end up more beautiful than WG2 Scheme. But maybe you have to understand the latter to see the beauty, like Beethoven and olives. P.S. When it comes to C programs I have no trouble understanding that macro preprocessing comes first. Perhaps it's actually helpful that the C macro language doesn't look anything like C. And also that there's never been a C REPL afaik, so my expectations are different. _______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
