[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Y.A.R.I.M.: Macros inside DECLARE?
- To: JLW@SU-AI.ARPA, rwk@SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA
- Subject: Y.A.R.I.M.: Macros inside DECLARE?
- From: Bernard S. Greenberg <BSG@SCRC-STONY-BROOK.ARPA>
- Date: Fri, 10 May 85 14:39 EDT
- Cc: common-lisp@SU-AI.ARPA
- In-reply-to: The message of 10 May 85 03:17-EDT from Jon White <JLW@SU-AI.ARPA>
Date: 10 May 85 0017 PDT
From: Jon White <JLW@SU-AI.ARPA>
In-reply-to: your message of 8-May-85 11:53 EDT
As far as I'm concerned, your attempt to unify source-level transformations
under the existing DEFMACRO is the best thing to come out of all this
discussion. No more DEFMUMBLEs where DEFMUMBLE is
I feel that this is more important than the issues of whether macros may
produce declares, or whether declare macroexpands its innards.
The comment above is also a vote against "lambda macros" -- they provide
absolutely no functionality beyond that capable by ordinary macros, and
give only marginally better error checking.
-- JonL --
Do I read you right, that what you are suggesting is that
I say (defmacro adbmal (x) `(lambda . (cdr ,x)))
and I could then say
(funcall foo #'(adbmal (y) (+ y 3))
? That's clearly right.