[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Scheme-reports] auxiliary syntax
A few minutes ago, Alex Shinn wrote:
> Not that I'm accusing you of doing this (at least in the post I'm
> replying to) but I'm wary of such a situation occurring, so I'm not
> going to address the rest of your post via mail. Rather I'll
> summarize the issues as best I see it for both sides via the wiki.
I completely agree with avoiding flamage -- but instead of ignoring
such posts, what I usually do to avoid them is try to get them back on
track. In this context, being on-topic would be the demonstration
that I asked for: this would be useful to see whether this is truly a
case where breaking hygiene is justified, or whether it can be
addressed elegantly without doing so.
As for a wiki post, I don't see any reason for that, since I'm
obviously not arguing to remove low-level-hygiene-breaking macros, and
you're obviously not arguing to abolish hygiene. To emphasize: this
has almost nothing to do with a standard[*], it's merely a discussion
of how quickly should you jump on the unhygienic wagon, or how
strongly should you resist doing so.
([*] In particular to R7, since there is only high-level hygienic
macros. The little relevance if in the unlikely case that someone
would conclude from this that there is a point in adding some
`syntax-rules/literal' thing. (And no, I don't consider Aaron's point
wrt guards as such -- they guards that he mentioned are hooks into the
((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x))) Eli Barzilay:
http://barzilay.org/ Maze is Life!
Scheme-reports mailing list