If you add macros to your language but don't then define many built in language constructs as macros, you haven't really added macros.
-
-
Replying to @peterseibel
@peterseibel ... this is related to thinking that nearly all lisp/scheme macros are just there to make up for overly-verbose lambda syntax.3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @avibryant
@avibryant Which thinking is, of course, wrong. As we've discussed. ;-)1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @peterseibel
@peterseibel so what's your favorite built-in language construct, implemented as a macro, that's not just wrapping lambdas?3 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @antifuchs
@antifuchs@peterseibel totally just wrapping lambdas.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @antifuchs
@antifuchs@peterseibel the ultimate trap! But seriously; Smalltalk does it that way and it's fine. [foo and: [bar]] whileTrue: [...]1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
@antifuchs @peterseibel meh, so there are some extra parens then. Or perfectly idiomatic to define and:and:and: and so on :)
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.