Re: loss of abstraction

[Michael Sperber <sperber@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Andrew Wilcox <awilcox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> But let me ask.  Suppose you are using a typical Scheme implementation
> in which CAR and CDR operate only on plain pairs.  You are then
> constrained to implement compound syntax objects as lists.  You have
> lost the ability to use some other abstraction.  As a practical
> matter, what impact does that have on you?  What would you like to be
> able to do with a syntax object abstraction that you'd not be able to
> do if you've lost that abstraction?

Change its representation.

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