Sugar unrelated to macros -- Was: Re: Sugar

Brendan Eich brendan at mozilla.org
Thu Aug 28 16:12:04 PDT 2008


On Aug 28, 2008, at 3:26 PM, Ingvar von Schoultz wrote:

> Macros and functions are very, very different. My proposal
> has only regular, run-of-the-mill functions. They don't have

"do have", right?

> parentheses around the arguments, but this detail doesn't
> make them in any way related to macros and their problems.

If you mean hygiene, that is not a practical problem so much as a  
theoretical one. Dave knows a lot about this topic, so I'll defer to  
him.


> I find it disconcerting that this list will so easily brush off
> proposals with some vague comment about something never proposed.

Please cut the "this list" collective guilt assignment. Felix  
<felix8a at gmail.com> replied identifying your idea with Python  
decorators, and you did not reply to him. Was his reply either  
disconcerting or a brush-off? No. Keep your arguments with  
individuals focused on individuals with whom you have a bone to pick,  
or better yet, avoid ad hominem (ad listinem ;-) arguments altogether.

/be

>
> Ingvar
>
>
>
> Ingvar von Schoultz wrote:
>> Dave Herman wrote:
>>>> The following would let people create syntax sugar for their
>>>> favorite paradigms.
>>> I really have to suggest you learn about macros before trying to
>>> reinvent them. This reading list is a good start:
>>>
>>>     http://library.readscheme.org/page3.html
>>
>> The idea is to avoid the unsolved problems of macro hygiene.
>> That's why the arrangement has only function calls, no macros.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Es-discuss mailing list
> Es-discuss at mozilla.org
> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/attachments/20080828/655779e6/attachment-0001.html 


More information about the Es-discuss mailing list