Re: Opaque syntax objects

[Michael Sperber <sperber@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

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