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

Re: question on the opaque syntax object debate

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.

Michael Sperber <sperber@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> Andrew Wilcox <awilcox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>> I'm excited to see the unification which allows the standard list
>> procedures (CAR, CDR, CONS) to work on syntax objects while retaining
>> hygiene.
> Just out of curiosity---from this statement, and more like it on this
> list, I'm getting the vague impression that people regard using lists
> to represent compound syntax as something new.  (Of course, Scheme
> macro systems have been doing that forever.)  Am I misunderstanding
> the vibes here?

I don't get it either. I, for my part, I'm rather underwhelmed ...

This all seems to bring us back to the "good old times" where there
was no real separation between code and data---this time, it just
happens "one stage further up" ...


Matthias Neubauer                                       |
Universität Freiburg, Institut für Informatik           | tel +49 761 203 8060
Georges-Köhler-Allee 79, 79110 Freiburg i. Br., Germany | fax +49 761 203 8052