Paul Rubin wrote: > Ken Tilton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >>btw, you called the defskill messy (repeated below) "messy". The only >>text not specific to absolute value is D-E-F-S-K-I-L-L. > > > No, the messiness was not in the macro instantation (defskill blah...), > but in the defmacro that tells the compiler how to expand it.
Again, that is precisely the point of macrology (in cases like this). When a pattern will repeat a sufficient number of times, and a function cannot handle the job, we do a little extra work (write some meta-code) to make dozens (or hundreds) of applications as minimalist as possible. That makes them concise, readable, and maintainable. > Python > function defs are lightweight enough that I don't experience a big pain > from using an extra one for a thing like that. Check out the latest, plz. The example has grown now beyond what a function can do, I think. meanwhile, I have not seen how Python lets you avoid revisiting dozens of instances when changes to a mechanism are required. ken -- Algebra: http://www.tilton-technology.com/LispNycAlgebra1.htm "Well, I've wrestled with reality for thirty-five years, Doctor, and I'm happy to state I finally won out over it." -- Elwood P. Dowd "I'll say I'm losing my grip, and it feels terrific." -- Smiling husband to scowling wife, New Yorker cartoon -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
