[plt-scheme] Macro Problem

From: Eli Barzilay (eli at barzilay.org)
Date: Sat Mar 29 16:05:23 EST 2003

On Mar 28, Bill Wood wrote:
> Finally, Eli's comment on relative clarity is apropos: I
> deliberately chose a minimal form on the grounds it would be easier
> to expand; I may add some syntactic sugar later.  On the other hand,
> you might notice that my minimal form is not all that far from the
> standard "do" iteration form: the differences are that the condition
> has been dropped from the termination form and the general "do" body
> has been replaced by what amountsd to the body of a "cond".
> Discussion of the relative merits of the computational pattern would
> be interesting, but perhaps should be in a separate thread.

Actually I don't think that there's any clarity problem with your
code, I was just pointing at the fact that using syntax-rules is good
enough as an explanation of the syntactic sugar -- and I thought that
in your case it was very evident since the macro code was clearer than
the preceding explanation (at least in my eyes).  Also, I think that
the fact that it was such a good explanation and that this quality is
largly lost in using the helper macro trick is a good excuse to try
and get the first version to work.  (But, as you said, this is
probably a delicate issue...)

          ((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x)))          Eli Barzilay:
                  http://www.barzilay.org/                 Maze is Life!

Posted on the users mailing list.