> I've been reading the latest chapter from Stuart's book, Chapter 7:
> Macros, and he makes this statement:
>
> "Clojure has no special syntax for code. Code is simply Clojure data.
> This is true for normal functions, but also for special forms and
> macros. Consider a language with syntax, such as Java. ..."
>
> It seems to me that just like all lisps, Clojure has syntax. The
> first and most obvious piece of syntax is the parenthesises. Lists
> start with an open paren and end with a closing paren. This is syntax
> and you can't change it with a macro.
I would agree with you, but I do not feel too strongly about the
matter. The statement "clojure has _no_ syntax" is probably not
defensible with an eye towards formal rigor.. I have no idea what a
syntax-less language would look like. I feel fairly certain that the
book's aims are not to provide a hard stance on no-syntax but to open
the eyes of those people who have been dealing with the Java's and the
C's for their entire careers, where syntax is locked in by convention
and grammar specs.
Despite quote and {} and [] being syntax-tic sugar, they certainly
have their sexp counterparts, and all of this is driven from the
reader which could possibly be extended or reduced for particular
needs -- although Clojure does not allow for programmer-defined
reader macros (unlike other lisps).
The existence of the reader makes the "no syntax" claim a lot easier
to understand, but in the end, this could be a long discussion about
what each person feels "syntax" is.
my $0.02
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Clojure" group.
To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
