[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Scheme-reports] auxiliary syntax
Just now, Alex Shinn wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 12:06 AM, Eli Barzilay <eli@x> wrote:
> Just now, Alex Shinn wrote:
> > It's equivalent to writing a macro which can parse and optimize
> > literal PCRE regex strings,
> Absolutely, but that doesn't bother me because with the above `let' I
> don't expect whatever to affect the meaning of a "foo+bar" string.
> [... general discussion of why strings are superior to sexps ...]
No, this was not an explanation of why strings are better than sexprs.
It was an explanation why I expect `+' to be `3' if it appears inside
(let ([+ 3]) --here--). Putting the above words in my mouth is
> I never thought I'd have to explain this on a Scheme or Lisp related
I never thought that I'd need to explan hygiene or its benefits or how
scope works on a Scheme related list, let alone the list where the
supposed future of the language is discussed.
((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x))) Eli Barzilay:
http://barzilay.org/ Maze is Life!
Scheme-reports mailing list