Re: scope of function definition

On Monday 25 April 2005 12:22 pm, Ralf Juengling wrote:
> Clearly, lush is neither CL nor scheme. However, whenever you 
> adopt a construct from either CL or scheme, it would be better to
> keep with the established name for it. Currently, <defvar> in lush 
> and <defvar> in CL have different semantics. In fact, lush's 
> <defvar> mimics Cl's <defparameter>.

I could emulate the defvar/defparameter semantic.

> sounds good. 
> You might add a <defmacro> as a globally binding version of <dm> as well.

Good idea.
<defmacro> might be closer to <dmd> than <dm> ?
The argument list looks like that of <dmd>.
But I am not sure that macros defined with <defmacro> behave like DMDs,
that is are physically plugged into the program text 
after the first (and last) expansion.

What is your take on this?

- L.


-------------------------------------------------------
SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide
Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users.
Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now.
http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=6595&alloc_id=14396&op=click