> You might have an extremely deep understanding of macros, in which case you > can ignore the next sentence.
I don't, and apologize if I've been using the term (and others!) incorrectly. What little I know has come from the documentation and papers I've encountered, and lacks the rigor of academic training or insight from the history of Racket. In providing an observation based on my personal (and limited) experience, I feel I've accidentally happened upon a (contentious?) topic with history unfamiliar to me, and about which I'm not currently able to converse precisely. Oops :) -Nick On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 12:37 PM, Matthias Felleisen <matth...@ccs.neu.edu> wrote: > > On Jul 13, 2012, at 2:05 PM, Nick Sivo wrote: > >> There were only a few places where breaking hygiene was a feature, > > > You might have an extremely deep understanding of macros, in which case you > can ignore the next sentence. > > Hygiene -- as it is used nowadays, not the thing for which I imported > Barendregt's original term -- does not just prohibit certain idioms it also > enables some that cannot be implemented with old macro system. > > And yes, the cost you pay is that you need to learn a distinct notation. BUT > I would argue that for true syntax programmers, this is a plus because it > reminds them of the very important fact that syntax is evaluated at a very > different time from run-time code, and that values flowing from one phase to > another work only by 'accident'. [I understand enough to know that it isn't > really by accident but in a sense it is and often it fails in subtle ways.] > > -- Matthias > ____________________ Racket Users list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
