On Fri, September 22, 2006 11:41 pm, Sam TH wrote:
> However, it's a complicated extension to the macro system, which would
> require careful specification (it's not just exposing the expander).
> Therefore, it's appropriate not to specify it right now - there's only
> so much that can be done in one revision.
Right, but if the spec were to restrict macroexpand to the domain of
define-macro, these complications wouldn't arise.
Let define-macro, syntax-rules and -case operate in parallel. And let
macroexpand work only for defined-macros. It's a practical solution, and
it doesn't prevent future extensions. What would be the disadvantages?
> Similarly, an FFI is very important for a programming language, but R6RS
> isn't going to specify one. That isn't a sign the R6RS process is
> failing, or that we should adopt a half-baked solution so that we can
> specify something now.
I agree. FFI is not a spec issue. I was just saying that besides
continuations and a good community, a Lisp would need a good FFI to make
me switch.
Dan Muresan
http://alumnus.caltech.edu/~muresan
Received on Fri Sep 22 2006 - 16:57:20 UTC