[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Opaque syntax objects

This page is part of the web mail archives of SRFI 72 from before July 7th, 2015. The new archives for SRFI 72 contain all messages, not just those from before July 7th, 2015.

On 8/12/05, Michael Sperber <sperber@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> The issue has come up in the discussion, but hasn't really been in the
> focus yet:
> I'd like to suggest that compound expressions be represented by an
> opaque type rather than by pairs.  This would ensure a modicum of
> abstraction, and would *really* make comprehensive the ability of all
> syntax objects to carry location information.  I've come to appreciate
> this added layer of abstraction in PLT Scheme.

But wouldn't this completely break the (IMHO) rather practical ability
to destructure arguments passed to macros via normal Scheme operators?
What I like about srfi-72 is that I can write hygienic macros with (nearly)
the same ease as in conventional Lisp-/quasiquote-style. In fact this is 
what I consider the most innovative feature for SRFI-72.