Andrew Kuchling wrote: > > Paul Prescod <paulp at ActiveState.com> writes: > > And if some smart people can use hygenic macros to make Python code that > > is more maintainable or readable, why should they be disallowed? Python > > I'm increasingly opposed to new Python features, but I'm still not > ruling out the idea of hygenic macros. Their presence might remove > the pressure to add new features, which would mean the language core > would be that more stable. I don't really believe that. I tihnk that hygenic macros could and should be used for: 1. experimentation 2. domain specific "little languages" based on Python like ptml or pyslt or pymake or ... > I expect it's very difficult to provide a > simple interface for them in Python, though, because the syntax, and > the resulting parse trees, are more complicated and less regular than > in Lisp; maybe I'm just pessimistic, though. A complicated interface to them might be just what is necessary to make their use infrequent enough to not be frightening. I would say: "just hand the macro a parse tree and ask it to return you another one." -- Take a recipe. Leave a recipe. Python Cookbook! http://www.ActiveState.com/pythoncookbook
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4