Newsgroups: comp.lang.dylan
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!rochester!cornell!travelers.mail.cornell.edu!news.tc.cornell.edu!caen!hookup!swrinde!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netcom.com!jgrace
From: jgrace@netcom.com (Joseph Grace)
Subject: Re: Dylan macro facility (or lack of it)
Message-ID: <jgraceD4GvIw.F24@netcom.com>
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
References: <3ignm8$e8v@peaches.cs.utexas.edu> <912.199502231644@phaedrus.harlequin.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 1995 19:01:44 GMT
Lines: 23
Sender: jgrace@netcom7.netcom.com

In article <912.199502231644@phaedrus.harlequin.com>,
Scott McKay <swm@harlequin.com> wrote:
>   Scott McKay <swm@harlequin.com> gave some examples of the Dylan macros system.
>   The Lisp version is not hygenic: it introduces function and block
>   bindings for FORMATTING-TABLE-BODY that could be picked up by the
>   argument and body forms.  I imagine SWM omitted them for perspicuity's
>   sake since I know he knows beter.
>
>No, the Lisp version is simply not hygienic.  Since somebody would
>actually have to do actual work, including referencing undocumented
>internal symbols in a package, I didn't feel the need to write this
>and related macros hygienically.  Who am I to keep people who are
>determined to screw themselves from doing so?  :-)

Would someone mind explaining the feature, hygienic macros?

It sounds like a valuable feature, but I've never heard of it before (and
the context leaves me confused).  Also, presumably, others would
like to know as well.

Thanks,

= Joe =
