[toronto-lisp] May meeting

[Vishvajit Singh]

That is really interesting, but.. geez! It really drives home that
Common Lisp has too many special forms. This code is practically the
simplest code walker possible and it's still 300 lines.

I always wondered why, for example, both LET and LET* need to be
special forms, or why both FLET and LABELS need to be. It seems like
only one needs to be a special form, and the other could be
implemented as a macro on top of the other. TAGBODY seems like it
could be written as a macro if your implementation has tail-call
optimization. (I'd be interested to see someone give that a try.)

One of the wonderful things in the original conception of Lisp is the
small number of primitives:
http://lib.store.yahoo.net/lib/paulgraham/jmc.lisp

Vish

On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 8:49 AM, Brian Connoy
<BConnoy at morrisonhershfield.com> wrote:
> Justin, you've probably dug this up already.  Have a gander at:
> http://john.freml.in/macroexpand-dammit
>
> BC
>
>
>
> On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 12:24:54PM -0400 or thereabouts, Justin Giancola wrote:
>> While I don't have a presentation per se, I'd like to propose a
>> discussion on macro hygiene and scoping inspired by ideas encountered
>> in Doug's book. I'm going to try to get together a few examples during
>> lunch at work.
>
> _______________________________________________
> toronto-lisp mailing list
> toronto-lisp at common-lisp.net
> http://common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/toronto-lisp
>
> _______________________________________________
> toronto-lisp mailing list
> toronto-lisp at common-lisp.net
> http://common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/toronto-lisp
>