[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [PATCH] Clojure-like syntactic sugar for an anonymous function liter

From: Daniel Colascione
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Clojure-like syntactic sugar for an anonymous function literal
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2015 12:34:18 -0800
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0

On 01/22/2015 09:22 AM, Oleh wrote:
>>>     #(foo bar) should translate to (short-lambda (foo bar))
>> Hmm...
>> Not completely sure where I stand on this.
> Thanks for the consideration in any case. And I'm glad that I asked
> this, even if it doesn't lead to a change.
>> A few notes:
>> - I like the generality of CL reader macros.
>> - But extending elisp-mode to understand what's going on (and "do the
>>   right thing") with each new reader macro is not easy.

That's a problem with any lisp that provides a reader-macro facility.
The onus is on the authors of macro packages to create macros that work
well with the existing emacs-lisp-mode parser.

>>   So I'm currently against addition of CL style reader macros.

Stefan, is emacs-lisp-mode support your only objection?

> I'm afraid that making CL style macros available to the public would
> lead to more 3rd party extensions defining control structures used by
> other 3rd party extensions. My opinion is that only the core should be
> allowed to do that. Or at least the 3rd party control flow structures
> should not propagate.

We already have plenty of libraries defining "control flow" structures;
look at all the anaphoric-if libraries out there. ITYM "lexical
structure", not "control structure".


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]