31–40 of 248 posts
Having used the old Smalltalk and Oberon environments, sadly not Lisp ones, I really thing many still don't get it.
The article doesn't discuss macros, which is one of the answers to "Why Lisp?" I didn't "get" macros until I read a footnote in the (freely available) book Practical Common Lisp . In chapter 7, it introduces the `dolist` macro. DOLIST loops across the items of a list, executing the loop body with a variable holding the successive items of the list. This is the basic skeleton (leaving out some of the more esoteric opt…
Could someone please explain the difference between Lisp macros and, say, languages that have first-class functions? I get that a Lisp macro will be expanded into the respective code, while a function's execution is different. However, at the practical (i.e., developer's) level, are there any additional benefits? Can, say, a Lisp macro be 'partially formed', in the sense that it can expand into some boilerplate that…
Macros allow for the arbitrary evaulation of it's arguments (rather than the standard left to right order before a function call), allowing you to do syntactic extensions without the added boilerplate that functional languages can require.
Essentially, each macro allows you to define a mini-language that is parsed by the compiler that returns code that is then compiled. It takes a while to groc, but once you do you can never really go back.
The article doesn't discuss macros, which is one of the answers to "Why Lisp?" I didn't "get" macros until I read a footnote in the (freely available) book Practical Common Lisp . In chapter 7, it introduces the `dolist` macro. DOLIST loops across the items of a list, executing the loop body with a variable holding the successive items of the list. This is the basic skeleton (leaving out some of the more esoteric opt…
And making maintenance more difficult (aren't you re-inventing a new language with macros?)?
Where does the "First rule of the macro club" coming from? When should you break it?
And to be honest, I am not really interested in how hard it is to write a compiler for the language I use.
The article doesn't discuss macros, which is one of the answers to "Why Lisp?" I didn't "get" macros until I read a footnote in the (freely available) book Practical Common Lisp . In chapter 7, it introduces the `dolist` macro. DOLIST loops across the items of a list, executing the loop body with a variable holding the successive items of the list. This is the basic skeleton (leaving out some of the more esoteric opt…
Could someone please explain the difference between Lisp macros and, say, languages that have first-class functions? I get that a Lisp macro will be expanded into the respective code, while a function's execution is different. However, at the practical (i.e., developer's) level, are there any additional benefits? Can, say, a Lisp macro be 'partially formed', in the sense that it can expand into some boilerplate that…
The advantage of CL macros is you can use functions written for your program to use at run-time during compilation-time/macro evaluation too.
The article doesn't discuss macros, which is one of the answers to "Why Lisp?" I didn't "get" macros until I read a footnote in the (freely available) book Practical Common Lisp . In chapter 7, it introduces the `dolist` macro. DOLIST loops across the items of a list, executing the loop body with a variable holding the successive items of the list. This is the basic skeleton (leaving out some of the more esoteric opt…
Could someone please explain the difference between Lisp macros and, say, languages that have first-class functions? I get that a Lisp macro will be expanded into the respective code, while a function's execution is different. However, at the practical (i.e., developer's) level, are there any additional benefits? Can, say, a Lisp macro be 'partially formed', in the sense that it can expand into some boilerplate that…
The article doesn't discuss macros, which is one of the answers to "Why Lisp?" I didn't "get" macros until I read a footnote in the (freely available) book Practical Common Lisp . In chapter 7, it introduces the `dolist` macro. DOLIST loops across the items of a list, executing the loop body with a variable holding the successive items of the list. This is the basic skeleton (leaving out some of the more esoteric opt…
It would help if I saw a real world problem and how you can solve it Lisp and not in say Python.
(defmacro unless (test &body body)
`(if (not ,test) ,@body))The article doesn't discuss macros, which is one of the answers to "Why Lisp?" I didn't "get" macros until I read a footnote in the (freely available) book Practical Common Lisp . In chapter 7, it introduces the `dolist` macro. DOLIST loops across the items of a list, executing the loop body with a variable holding the successive items of the list. This is the basic skeleton (leaving out some of the more esoteric opt…
there is two sides. probably, one evil thing is you have to deal with every other's abstraction and it will make you frustrated when there is a large codebase and a deadline.
* Another programmer's 15 function API, and a document on how to use it properly?
* Or another programmer's 15 function API, along with three macros which use the API properly, and capture all the scenarios I need based on a couple of examples.
The article doesn't discuss macros, which is one of the answers to "Why Lisp?" I didn't "get" macros until I read a footnote in the (freely available) book Practical Common Lisp . In chapter 7, it introduces the `dolist` macro. DOLIST loops across the items of a list, executing the loop body with a variable holding the successive items of the list. This is the basic skeleton (leaving out some of the more esoteric opt…
Could someone please explain the difference between Lisp macros and, say, languages that have first-class functions? I get that a Lisp macro will be expanded into the respective code, while a function's execution is different. However, at the practical (i.e., developer's) level, are there any additional benefits? Can, say, a Lisp macro be 'partially formed', in the sense that it can expand into some boilerplate that…
A LISP macro is a syntax transformation. It lets you write code in the way you want to, instead of whatever level of abstraction you used to have.
I'm not sure about 'partially formed' code output, but 'partially formed' input is definitely possible. The way to invoke a LISP macro need not be valid LISP. In short, LISP macros excel at creating domain-specific languages.