LFMs and LFSPs (Michael Vanier via PG)

Re:LFMs and LFSPs (Michael Vanier via PG) by aston on Monday July 09, 2007 @11:45AM (#33256)

I think you missed part of my point, which is that "..." vs. ".." is a subtlety introduced by the mantra of high-density syntax seen in LFSP design.

The 10 doesn't print, btw.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:LFMs and LFSPs (Michael Vanier via PG) by brlewis on Monday July 09, 2007 @12:32PM (#33270)

I don't think the ".." vs "..." level of density is universal in LFSP design. Macros in Lisp/Scheme are words. See the sql-repeat macro with group-beginning? and group-ending? for example. It makes things more transparent than your typical LFM implementation would:

http://brl.codesimply.net/brl_4.html#SEC31

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:LFMs and LFSPs (Michael Vanier via PG) by jey on Monday July 09, 2007 @02:13PM (#33297)

Then by your measure, is Perl the most-LFSP language out there? I think Perl reads like line noise. High-density syntax with clear, simple concepts is a desirable feature in a language. Assigning some function to every possible permutation of symbols (a la Perl) is just stupid. Ruby falls into the "just stupid" bin in this case.

[ Parent | on HN ]