Kirk Sluder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > "mystilleef" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> 1). More and better mature standard libraries (Languages don't matter, >> libraries do). > .... >> On Lisp Macros: >> >> I think they are overrated, and in general cause more harm than good. >> It's the reason I find Lisp-like programs difficult to grok, maintain >> and extend. Cos every smart ass wants to needlessly write his own mini >> language to the point of absolute obfuscation. Naturally, I'm supposed >> to be awed by his mischievous cleverness. > > I've not seen a convincing explanation as to why imported macros > from some library are so much more evil than imported functions. In > both cases one might have to dig into documentation and/or comments > to understand exactly what that imported snippit is doing.
And the difference with a library function is? (defpackage "LIBRARY" (:export "THIS-IS-A-FUNCTION")) (library:this-is-a-function ???) ; ??? -- __Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/ "This statement is false." In Lisp: (defun Q () (eq nil (Q))) -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
