RetroSearch Browse

Mon Apr 16 18:03:38 EDT 2001 · http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-list/2001-April/081576.html

"Douglas Alan" <nessus at mit.edu> wrote in message
news:lcbspw1r90.fsf at gaffa.mit.edu...
> "Alex Martelli" <aleaxit at yahoo.com> writes:
>
> > Exact syntax sugar could be endlessly (and fruitlessly) debated, but
> > the general idea might be:
>
> Python should have procedural macros like Lisp.  Then whenever anyone
> asks a question about why Python doesn't have syntactic feature xyzzy,
> the answer can always be, "You can already do what you want by loading
> the following macro...."

Yes, 'hygienic macros' WOULD help cut these discussions short.  Pity
this benefit (basically restricted to c.l.p) would be balanced by the
productivity loss engendered by the actual existence of such macros
in the language -- a language which may have ANY 'syntactic feature'
ensures any given program is impossible to understand unless you
first study the exact set of macros used by its author:-).

Alex

Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Showing content from http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-list/2001-April/081576.html below:

do...until wisdom needed...