Re:Can a language have Lisp's powerful macros without the pa...
by brlewis on Thursday April 05, 2007 @12:38PM
(#9267)
Could you give an example that's more powerful? From the 60-second intro you linked to, these look no more powerful than C's macros.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C_preprocessor#Macro_definition_and_expansion
Re:Can a language have Lisp's powerful macros without the pa...
by inklesspen on Thursday April 05, 2007 @07:48PM
(#9453)
I don't use it myself; I just had it in my bookmarks.
I am also not very familiar with Lisp's macros. You may find something of interest in the more complete documentation.
Sorry.
Re:Can a language have Lisp's powerful macros without the pa...
by BrandonM on Thursday April 05, 2007 @10:50AM
(#9201)
I agree, thanks for the link. Unfortunately, I find the complete lack of syntax to make it even harder to read than Lisp macros (which I don't personally find difficult, but some do). Additionally, having to use numbers to indicate operator precedence seems a bit strange. Of course, Lisp solves this by always using parentheses, but I would be curious to see if there is a more elegant way of handling this than the numeric approach (or even the approach suggested in their proposed changes to Logix).
Re:Can a language have Lisp's powerful macros without the pa...
by raju on Thursday April 05, 2007 @06:49PM
(#9437)
I agree with you. The lack of parentheses makes that hard to read. I am trying to get head wrapped around lisp (maybe thats it, I am _looking_ for the parentheses :)).
Re:Can a language have Lisp's powerful macros without the pa...
by mattculbreth on Thursday April 05, 2007 @10:31AM
(#9185)
Thanks for posting that. We're building a DSL for our users and this will get put on the stack of things to look into. We're Python hackers so it's a good find.
http://www.livelogix.net/logix/intro.html
Logix is built on Python and compiles down to Python bytecode, so you can use it with Python modules, but it has macros that I think are probably as powerful as Lisp's. It's meant for DSLs.