On Dec 19, 2:05 pm, Stuart Halloway wrote:
> According to Paul Graham's On Lisp, macroexpanders should be purely
> functional, and you should not count on how often a macro gets
> expanded. This seems like a reasonable restriction for Clojure too.
> However, Chouser posted an example that shows
> This seems like a reasonable restriction for Clojure too.
Third rule. Macros break the rules. Don't place arbitrary
restrictions on rule breaking :P
s_P
On Dec 19, 2:05 pm, Stuart Halloway wrote:
> According to Paul Graham's On Lisp, macroexpanders should be purely
> functional, and you sh
I think it's a generally good idea for macros to be purely functional,
but it's not always a requirement. As long as Clojure remains
exclusively a compiler and not an interpreter (unlike some CL
implementations) I think it is safe to assume that macros will only
run at compile time.
-S
On Dec 19
According to Paul Graham's On Lisp, macroexpanders should be purely
functional, and you should not count on how often a macro gets
expanded. This seems like a reasonable restriction for Clojure too.
However, Chouser posted an example that shows the expansion of proxy
does have a side effec
