"Jose A. Ortega Ruiz" <j...@gnu.org> writes: Hi Jose,
>> I don't know scheme macros, so could you please explain why they are >> more powerful? What can you do with a syntax-case macro what you >> cannot do with a Common Lisp (or Clojure) macro? > > In general, syntax-case lets you manipulate first-class syntax > objects, whereby all kind of neat tricks are possible out of the box. > You gain in expressivity. This is a good overview: > > http://blog.racket-lang.org/2011/04/writing-syntax-case-macros.html See my last post. ;-) > It's also possible to implement hygiene on top of defmacro (with the > help of CLOS's symbol-macrolet: > http://www.p-cos.net/documents/hygiene.pdf), but it's much more > convoluted (and, IIRC, some of the syntax API is still missing in that > long paper). Would that solve the issue I've broad up in my last post, where the `foo' macro expansion uses the local `my-plus' definition instead of the global one? If I'm not doing anything wrong there, then that effectively would mean that you cannot guarantee that a CL macro does what it should as soon as it uses anything that's not defined in the COMMON-LISP package (because those things mustn't be rebound). In that case, I'd even by the powerfulness argument. > Even if you don't buy the expressivity argument, i think we can agree > that syntax-case macros are, at least, as powerful as CL macros. Sure, I'm not trying to argument in favour of either one. I'm just interested in the differences. Bye, Tassilo -- 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
