[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.

 Matthias Neubauer wrote: 
 > 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" ...
 That is a rather different issue from whether syntax objects
 are opaque to list operations.  Syntax objects are data,
 whether they are opaque or not to list operations.  
 I would consider the cross-stage persistence semantics you advocated
 a much better example of what it means to confuse the distinction 
 between code and data.
 As you know from the namespaces thread, I am in fact advocating a 
 stricter separation between code on the one hand, and data representing 
 code at a different syntactic storey on the other hand, than is 
 currently done in comparable Scheme macro systems.