[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.

On Sun, Aug 21, 2005 at 05:31:29AM -0700, bear wrote:
> In fact, I'll go further.  If compiler/interpreter technology
> advances to the point where the performance benefits (or even
> just 80% or so of them) can be realized without the phase
> separation, I think getting rid of phase separation entirely
> would be The Right Thing for Lisp dialects.

I'm not sure what exactly you refer to with "phase separation" here, but
Lisp's had (macroexpand) and (macroexpand1) for ages.

In fact, it bugs me that R5RS does not say when macros are expanded.
For example, an implementation may freely choose to expand arguments of
(eval) or not to expand them.  Portability, eh?  Unless I'm overlooking


personal contact: atehwa@xxxxxx, +35841 5323835, +3589 85619369
work contact: panu.kalliokoski@xxxxxxxxxxx, +35850 3678003
kotisivu (henkkoht):	http://www.iki.fi/atehwa/
homepage (technical):	http://sange.fi/~atehwa/