Re: [Scheme-reports] Proposal to add fexprs

[Eli Barzilay <eli@x>]

Three hours ago, Sascha Ziemann wrote:
> 2013/11/18 John Cowan <cowan@x>
> 
>     > This was all good fun, and easy enough to do in a pure functional
>     > dialect of Scheme (mutation really bungs up the kind of aggressive
>     > constant propagation and inlining I was doing), but would be hard to
>     > scale to a Scheme with mutation!
>    
>     Well, you could limit mutation to run time only.  See Conall
>     Elliot's wonderful post "The C language is purely functional" at
>     <http://conal.net/blog/posts/the-c-language-is-purely-functional>.
> 
> Matt Might proposes 3D-syntax:
> 
> http://matt.might.net/articles/
> metacircular-evaluation-and-first-class-run-time-macros/

That uses 3D syntax only as a solution to capturing names in the
direction where gensym doesn't help; it uses his fexprs, not
implementing them.

-- 
          ((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x)))          Eli Barzilay:
                    http://barzilay.org/                   Maze is Life!

_______________________________________________
Scheme-reports mailing list
Scheme-reports@x
http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports