The Failure of Lisp? A Reply To Brandon Werner

Re:The Failure of Lisp? A Reply To Brandon Werner by lallysingh on Thursday September 18, 2008 @07:58PM (#308743)

Or:

1. Allow a factory for Class.

2. Make Method contain the full body contents as a list of statements, and give them a factory as well.

Then it's a matter of reasonable constructor syntax.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The Failure of Lisp? A Reply To Brandon Werner by orib on Friday September 19, 2008 @01:17AM (#308977)

And a whole lot of "wait, what tree does this code map to again?"

With lisp, there's no difficulty mapping:

   int main(int x) {foo()}

  Method m = new Method(return:=new Type(int),
                        args  := new ArgList(
                                  new Arg(new Type(int),
                                          new Name("x"))),
                        body  := new Block(

.... I'm sure you get the point....

The syntax tree is apparent from the syntax.

  (+ 1 2 (* 3 4))

Maps to:

  '(+ 1 2 (* 3 4))

[ Parent | on HN ]