Re: Lark - A surface syntax for Common Lisp
"Marco Antoniotti (as marco dot antoniotti at unimib dot it)" <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.lisp.lispworks.general |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <CAG0Nw2=X_4dXegQLfbi0nX02-D8jE7-n+Ggt3cjeo0SUsgY1dA@mail.gmail.com> |
+2 (+1 for the Rust comment and +1 for the Schema comment) On Sun, Feb 15, 2026 at 6:46 PM David McClain (as dbm at refined-audiometrics dot com) <[email protected]> wrote: > Yes, I had my fill of “Macros” between Scheme (Racket) and Rust. Neither > of those are what I consider tools to lighten the load of writing source > code, in the same way that conventional Lisp Macros do. I did do a little > bit in Dylan way back when. But I still prefer the "what you see is what > you" get with Lisp Macros. > > Rust worries way to much about “memory safety”, and Racket worries way too > much about "variable capture". > > > On Feb 15, 2026, at 09:52, Tim Bradshaw (as tfb at cley dot com) < > [email protected]> wrote: > > On 15 Feb 2026, at 15:49, David McClain (as dbm at refined-audiometrics > dot com) <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On a more serious note, the existing S-expr surface syntax is a huge > reason for the enormous utility of Lisp macros. Noisy syntaxae (sp?) just > make that so much more difficult. > > > Have a look at macros in Rhombus. It's not helped by the 'I wrote a PhD > and here is how macros should work using post-abstract deconvolved > automorphic lattices' thing, but even then, oh god. CL macros are in many > ways nasty, but what Rhombus does is not the fix. > > --tim > > Oh, sorry, I've just been told that it's *re*convolved: deconvolved was > two weeks ago. > > > -- Marco Antoniotti, Professor, Director tel. +39 - 02 64 48 79 01 DISCo, University of Milan-Bicocca U14 2043 http://dcb.disco.unimib.it Viale Sarca 336 I-20126 Milan (MI) ITALY REGAINS: https://regains.disco.unimib.it/