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

Re: loss of abstraction

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.

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