Version française
Home     About     Download     Resources     Contact us    

This site is updated infrequently. For up-to-date information, please visit the new OCaml website at

Browse thread
Estimating the size of the ocaml community
[ Home ] [ Index: by date | by threads ]
[ Search: ]

[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: 2005-02-14 (14:36)
From: Thomas Fischbacher <Thomas.Fischbacher@P...>
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Re: The boon of static type checking

On Mon, 14 Feb 2005, Stefan Monnier wrote:

> > But S-expressions are arguably the best syntax for writing macro
> > expansions.  Since an S-expression is trivially parseable and dispatches on
> That's exactly where syntax is important: depending on your syntax some
> things are easy/concise and others aren't, so people end up adapting a very
> different programming style.  It doesn't mean that one syntax is
> intrinsically better than another, but just that syntax does matter.

Macroexpansion - if done properly - is done at the level of parsed trees. 
Hence, yes, it does matter if this is obscured by syntax or not, that is: 
whether your language does provide a special "mostly arbitrary" syntax or 
whether it does not.

Superficial differences in various ad-hoc notations, say "{}" vs. 
"BEGIN/END" and such, by far do not matter as much as questions whether 
there is a machine code compiler available, or whether memory management 
works in a proper way.

regards,                   (o_
 Thomas Fischbacher -  //\
(lambda (n) ((lambda (p q r) (p p q r)) (lambda (g x y)           V_/_
(if (= x 0) y (g g (- x 1) (* x y)))) n 1))                  (Debian GNU)