On 21 Sep 2006, at 18:37, Eli Barzilay wrote:
> On Sep 21, Pascal Costanza wrote:
>>
>> On 21 Sep 2006, at 17:54, Eli Barzilay wrote:
>>
>>> On Sep 17, Pascal Costanza wrote:
>>>
>>>> Full description of the issue:
>>>>
>>>> Section 17.6, page 113, last paragraph, states that "Using lisp-
>>>> transformer, defining a basic version of Common Lisp's defmacro
>>>> is a
>>>> straightforward exercise."
>>>>
>>>> This is misleading. [...]
>>>
>>> I don't think so. I read "basic version" as the basic version
>>> that is commonly found in some Schemes -- no destructuring and no
>>> environments.
>>
>> The text says "basic version of Common Lisp's defmacro", not "basic
>> version of some Schemes' defmacro."
>
> My opinion is the same (change "\"basic version\"" in my text to
> "\"basic version of Common Lisp's defmacro\"").
>
>
>> The current text can be interpreted as if what lisp-transformer does
>> were all that Common Lisp's defmacro basically does. And that's
>> wrong. Implementing a full-fledged version of Common Lisp's defmacro
>> is certainly not a straightforward exercise.
>>
>> The text can also be interpreted differently, but that's why I said
>> the text is "misleading", not "wrong."
>
> The text seems to be addressing people who would be worried for losing
> defmacro-functionality, and it demonstrates that you don't really lose
> it.
You do.
Pascal
--
Pascal Costanza, mailto:pc_at_p-cos.net, http://p-cos.net
Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Programming Technology Lab
Pleinlaan 2, B-1050 Brussel, Belgium
Received on Thu Sep 21 2006 - 12:41:08 UTC