"Jose A. Ortega Ruiz" writes:
Hi Jose,
>> I don't know scheme macros, so could you please explain why they are
>> more powerful? What can you do with a syntax-case macro what you
>> cannot do with a Common Lisp (or Clojure) macro?
>
> In general, syntax-case lets you manipulate first-class synt
Hi Tassilo,
On Tue, Dec 06 2011, Tassilo Horn wrote:
> "Jose A. Ortega Ruiz" writes:
>
> Hi Jose,
>
>>> I think that Common Lisp macros are, strictly speaking, more powerful
>>> than Scheme macros, but I don't have a citation.
>>
>> That's only true for syntax-rules macros. syntax-case macros,
> Does that mean that Clojure's defmacro is aware of the lexical scope as
> well and is therefore equally powerful as Scheme's syntax-case?
>
> Bye,
> Tassilo
In my implementation of syntax-rules/syntax-case, I did essentially
the same thing as syntax-quote (had to reimplement it as there is no
pro
Stephen Compall writes:
> On Tue, 2011-12-06 at 16:09 +0100, Tassilo Horn wrote:
>> Wikipedia lists syntax-case as hygienic macro system, which would
>> make it less powerful than CL macros, because if that was true, you
>> could not write anaphoric macros with it.
>
> You can write anaphora with
On Tue, 2011-12-06 at 16:09 +0100, Tassilo Horn wrote:
> Wikipedia lists syntax-case as hygienic macro system, which would make
> it less powerful than CL macros, because if that was true, you could not
> write anaphoric macros with it.
You can write anaphora with syntax-case. In fact, defmacro i
"Jose A. Ortega Ruiz" writes:
Hi Jose,
>> I think that Common Lisp macros are, strictly speaking, more powerful
>> than Scheme macros, but I don't have a citation.
>
> That's only true for syntax-rules macros. syntax-case macros, which
> most schemes provide and are required by R6RS, are, stric
On Sat, Dec 03 2011, Stuart Sierra wrote:
> I think that Common Lisp macros are, strictly speaking, more powerful
> than Scheme macros, but I don't have a citation.
That's only true for syntax-rules macros. syntax-case macros, which
most schemes provide and are required by R6RS, are, strictly sp
You might be interested in the paper 'Fortifying Macros':
http://www.ccs.neu.edu/scheme/pubs/icfp10-cf.pdf syntax-parse is very
cool and can give good error messages if the user makes a mistake when
using the macro. About a year ago I tried making an implementation of
a system like syntax-parse f
Em 12/04/11 03:16, Razvan Rotaru escreveu:
Wow. I didn't thought this was possible. You know, I have seen a lot
of people saying that scheme macros are more "powerfull", citing the
fact that scheme also has lisp macros, while it's not possible to do
it the other way around.
Of course it's possibl
Wow. I didn't thought this was possible. You know, I have seen a lot
of people saying that scheme macros are more "powerfull", citing the
fact that scheme also has lisp macros, while it's not possible to do
it the other way around.
On Dec 4, 2:06 am, Scott Jaderholm wrote:
> Scheme style macros i
On Sun, 04 Dec 2011 00:08:36 +0100
Tassilo Horn wrote:
> Stuart Sierra writes:
>
> > I think that Common Lisp macros are, strictly speaking, more
> > powerful than Scheme macros, but I don't have a citation.
>
> Let over Lambda is essentially a huge essay about why there's and will
> never be
Scheme style macros in Clojure: https://github.com/qbg/syntax-rules
Scott
On Sat, Dec 3, 2011 at 1:20 PM, Razvan Rotaru wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> I was searching the web these days trying to find out more about these
> two macro systems and understand their differences, and why one is
> prefera
This talk of "Scheme macros" is a little weird: are we talking syntax-case,
explicit-renaming, or unhygienic defmacro? Scheme has them all.
There are also implementation-specific mechanisms for writing reader macros:
what's left?
On Dec 3, 2011, at 14:57, Stuart Sierra wrote:
> I think that
Stuart Sierra writes:
> I think that Common Lisp macros are, strictly speaking, more powerful
> than Scheme macros, but I don't have a citation.
Let over Lambda is essentially a huge essay about why there's and will
never be anything as powerful than the CL macro system.
Bye,
Tassilo
--
You r
I think that Common Lisp macros are, strictly speaking, more powerful than
Scheme macros, but I don't have a citation.
-S
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Clojure" group.
To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com
Note that posts f
15 matches
Mail list logo
