[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]


> Date: Tue, 7 Apr 87 07:44:26 est
> From: "John D. Ramsdell" <ramsdell%faron@MITRE-BEDFORD.ARPA>
> Multiple returns and optional arguments are interesting
> to discuss, but everybody uses macros.  It seems to me
> that an agreement on macros is much more important.

I agree that it is equally important, but harder to resolve.

>							JAR's
> proposal appears to satisfy most needs for macros.  At first
> I worried about the added complexity of specifying macros, but
> now I think that its good to discourage its use by making it 
> hairy.

I can't agree that any language feature should be made hairy in order
to discourage its use.  If a feature deserves to be in Scheme then it
deserves to be done right.  You (or I, at least) can't morally
discourage the use of a feature by booby-trapping it with excess

>	  Do I understand the lack of discussion to mean that
> there are no objections to JAR's proposal?  If so, let's adopt 
> it and move on.

No, I at least just haven't finished preparing a response.  His
proposal is detailed, has much merit, and deserves serious study.
This topic is *much* more complicated than the others raised so far,
so it's hard to critique one proposal without suggesting alternatives.

> John