On Wed, Dec 09, 2009 at 02:35:24PM -0800, Joost wrote:
> On 9 dec, 17:03, Jeff Dik wrote:
> > The part "Running code at read-time lets users reprogram Lisp's
> > syntax" caught my attention. Is this talking about reader macros? I
> > believe I read that clojure doesn't have reader macros, so wou
On 9 dec, 17:03, Jeff Dik wrote:
> The part "Running code at read-time lets users reprogram Lisp's
> syntax" caught my attention. Is this talking about reader macros? I
> believe I read that clojure doesn't have reader macros, so would it be
> more accurate to say "The whole language is there, _
On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 11:15 AM, Jarkko Oranen wrote:
> Jeff Dik wrote:
>> The part "Running code at read-time lets users reprogram Lisp's
>> syntax" caught my attention. Is this talking about reader macros? I
>> believe I read that clojure doesn't have reader macros, so would it be
>> more accu
Jeff Dik wrote:
> The part "Running code at read-time lets users reprogram Lisp's
> syntax" caught my attention. Is this talking about reader macros? I
> believe I read that clojure doesn't have reader macros, so would it be
> more accurate to say "The whole language is there, _most_ of the
> tim
I would say it depends how strongly you feel about reader macros,
since they are purely (very useful) shorthand.
On Dec 9, 11:03 am, Jeff Dik wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've been rereading "Programming Clojure" and on page 25 it says
>
> The whole language is there, all the time. Paul Graham's essay
>
