[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 are here. Eventually, the entire history will be moved there, including any new messages.



Keith Wright <kwright@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> In my opinion, the great beauty of this SRFI is that it
> makes syntax into a list of identifiers so that we can
> write macros with map, caddar, reverse, etc...
> I _don't_ want to learn a whole new set, and re-write
> all my utility list handing procedures as syntax transformers.

Sure you gain convenience.  As with a lot of other conveniences in
programming, you lose abstraction.  Using symbols to represent
identifiers is also convenient, but considered a bad idea by many for
the same reasons.  The problem is that once abstraction is lost, you
can't regain it.  You *can* regain the convenience.

-- 
Cheers =8-} Mike
Friede, Völkerverständigung und überhaupt blabla