Em 12/04/11 03:16, Razvan Rotaru escreveu:
Wow. I didn't thought this was possible. You know, I have seen a lot
of people saying that scheme macros are more "powerfull", citing the
fact that scheme also has lisp macros, while it's not possible to do
it the other way around.
Of course it's possible. I think it's mostly like training wheels on a
bike and the like: defmacro is some kind of atom macro system you can
use to do anything you can imagine, but some things are hard to do, and
the scheme system is just making the common cases easier to do right.
I have been reading the Guile 2.0 documentation (very much worth a read,
as it's the first Guile with a VM and other languages than Scheme, e.g.
Emacs lisp) and I think this and that (and Clojure) show very well that
good lisps is more a case of sensible defaults (Guile: very very easy to
integrate in C; Clojure: JVM as an asset, immutable by default and
mutability as an option...) than anything else that makes a lisp better
or worse. You can basically do everything in every lisp, but defaults
really matter.
--
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
Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your
first post.
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
