tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8288194986820249216.post7825784175470923113..comments2024-03-22T05:09:17.789-07:00Comments on Abstract Heresies: Yet more ramblingJoe Marshallhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03233353484280456977noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8288194986820249216.post-87298041857519068142009-09-18T09:52:00.439-07:002009-09-18T09:52:00.439-07:00Hygiene is definitely the right thing, but I think...Hygiene is definitely the right thing, but I think the jury is still out on the best way to achieve it. All the proposed mechanisms — syntax-rules, syntax-case, explicit renaming, syntactic closures, reverse syntactic closures, etc. — seem to be harder to use than they ought to be.<br><br />Thanks for pointing out the `my-mapcar' bugs. I fixed them. I had tested the code in Emacs lisp, but I decided to change the names when I copied it to the blog and built a little story around it.Joe Marshallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03233353484280456977noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8288194986820249216.post-35215591659465514202009-09-18T06:50:32.650-07:002009-09-18T06:50:32.650-07:00Reading the endless debates on hygienic macros and...Reading the endless debates on hygienic macros and thinking about the matter I came to the conclusion (it was indeed more a feeling than a conclusion) that hygiene is the right thing in a lexically scoped language. Anything else is inconsistent.<br /><br />Your posting gave a name to this discomfort, namely "abstraction breach". Thank you very much.<br /><br />In a similar vain, I also have the "feeling" that having two namespaces does not match with first class functions, but I confess that I have not thought much about this another discomfort.<br /><br />BTW, in some of your examples above there calls to `my-mapcar'. I guess you meant `lib-mapcar'.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17713021536347849514noreply@blogger.com