> On Oct 17, 2017, at 1:35 PM, Alexis King <lexi.lam...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > I agree that it would be nice to have a better introduction to Racket’s > macro-writing facilities that starts with basics and scales to advanced > topics (the syntax-rules/syntax-case/syntax-parse duplicity is > confusing, and a lot of useful utilities are tucked away in the syntax > collection), and maybe the fact that no such resource exists is an > indication that Racket’s macro system is too complicated. But that > conclusion confuses me, since I know myself and others have been able > to pick things up with a little bit of tinkering, so surely that same > learning process can be captured somehow, right? I’m not sure.
I think what we’re really seeing here is that backwards compatibility sometimes smothers elegant solutions. I firmly believe that in this case we should simply throw out syntax-rules and syntax-case ;; - - - The fact that no proper introduction to our syntax system is a chicken and egg problem. We need to cut away the crud and settle on what to describe. And it is a personnel problem. When Ryan studied with me, I seriously hoped that he would write down his vast volumes of insights as a book. I proposed several different forms and I think he wants to do it. So it’s hard to jump in. Matthew does not believe in books. Other Matthew has written a book from a particular angle. It’s beautiful but clearly leaves an unsatisfied need behind. Stephen should do it. But he doesn’t even have time for coffee. I have no time and my macro thinking is too sporadic. So I have decided to develop yet another course next semester .. and it is called “Hack Your Own Language.” Perhaps this will help. — Matthias -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Racket Users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
