"Terry Reedy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > |>oug writes:
>> Scheme has a powerful syntax extension mechanism > I did not and do not see this as relevant to the main points of my > summary above. Python has powerful extension mechanisms too, but > comparing the two languages on this basis is a whole other topic. Please note that Guy Steele in his abstract for "Rabbit: A Compiler for SCHEME", specifically mentions that Scheme is designed to be a minimal language in which, "All of the traditional imperative constructs [...] as well as many standard LISP constructs [...] are expressed in macros in terms of the applicative basis set. [...] The macro approach enables speedy implementation of new constructs as desired without sacrificing efficiency in the generated code." http://library.readscheme.org/servlets/cite.ss?pattern=Ste-78b Do you now see how Scheme's syntax extension mechanism is relevant? |>oug -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
