[gambit-list] Module System start up announcement

David Rush kumoyuki at gmail.com
Mon Mar 17 17:16:51 EDT 2008


On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 8:43 PM, Taylor R Campbell <campbell at mumble.net>
wrote:

>
>   hygiene when necessary. And frankly, good old define-macro is hard to
> beat
>   for that, no matter how groovy syntax-case appears to everyone.
>
> This is absurd.


It's a matter of emphasis, Taylor. I write better than 90% of my macros in
SYNTAX-RULES. I *like* hygiene.


> offered by every reasonable programmatic macro system out there, not
> merely SYNTAX-CASE,


SYNTAX-CASE and explicit renaming (Larceny & S48, IIRC) are the main ones
I'm aware of. Are there other major contenders?


> yet long experience has shown that this is almost
> always a mistake;


I never said anything different. But for the rare cases where hygiene
breaking is desired, I find the semi-hygienic systems to be awfully cryptic.

And since I'm not interested in a religious advocacy war over hygiene, I'd
like to know how you think module/namespace-based renaming is an adequate
substitute for true hygiene in macros? Because I just don't see it.
Module-based renaming and macrotic renaming operate at sufficiently
different levels of detail as to seem like rather different operators to me.

david rush
-- 
Once you label me, you negate me
- Soren Kierkegaard
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.iro.umontreal.ca/pipermail/gambit-list/attachments/20080317/ea3d3eea/attachment.htm>


More information about the Gambit-list mailing list