[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.
> 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
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.