[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > I can't imagine how it could be worse than the learning curve of > > __metaclass__, which we already have. > > To me, learning macros *and their subtilities* was much more difficult > than learning metaclasses.
I guess I've only used Lisp macros in pretty straightforward ways, that weren't hard to understand. That's enough for anything I've needed. But we don't hear much about __metaclass__ because almost nobody understands it. > Go to comp.lang.scheme and google for "macros and module system"; > you will get everything you want to know and much more! OK, I might do this. > Well, I see this as a positive fact. If a syntax is contrived (such > as a ternary operator, for instance) it is better *not* to have it > than to have one hundred custom made syntaxes. At the end, we are > just talking about syntax sugar here, not about lack of > functionality. I think the idea is there would be some experimentation and then one of the versions would make it into the standard library. > > [compiling Lisp to Python bytecode] > This is a bizarre idea if you want to make Python run faster. It is > not so bizarre if what you want is to have access to Python from > Lisp/Scheme in the same sense Jython has access to Java. Why not just use a foreign function interface? -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
