On Tue, 2004-03-23 at 16:15, Samuele Pedroni wrote: > At 12:54 23.03.2004 -0800, Guido van Rossum wrote: > > > > All this makes me lean towards getting rid of the binding capture > > > > feature. That way everybody will get bitten by the late binding fair > > > > and square the first time they try it. > > > > > > I prefer this approach over one that has subtleties and nuances. > > > >I was partly inpsired to this position by reading a draft for Paul > >Graham's new book, Hackers and Painters (which will include last > >year's PyCon keynote on the 100-year language). In one of his many > >criticisms of Common Lisp (not his favorite Lisp dialect :), Paul > >complains about hygienic macros that they are designed to take away > >the power and sharp edges, but that for him the attraction of Lisp is > >precisely in that power. > > hmm, I'm confused CL has non-hygienic macros, although you can workaround that > using the package system or gensym, > Scheme has hygienic macros, I believe Paul is definitely a fan of CL over Scheme. Academic: "Paul, that macro isn't hygenic." Paul: "So tell my mother." > the current list comprehension in Python e.g. behaves like an unhygienic macro: > > x = 3 > l= [ l*2 for x in l] > # x is not 3 anymore. I guess I prefer Scheme, because I'd like to see this fixed ;-). I don't think it's much like a macro, though. The expanded code is visible at the invocation site. Jeremy
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