[racket-dev] OT: stump misunderstands Scheme?

You know, it's not inconceivable such a thing could happen if you had
a PURELY syntactic *interpreter*.

I remember when I got to Brown, they were using one of those weirdo
Scheme interpreters, and had come to conclusions about the semantics
of Scheme on the basis of its behavior.  Things like you could run

('(lambda (x) x) 3)

and it would evaluate to 3 because of the way the interpreter was structured.

Now if Aaron ran one of those to test his code...

Shriram

On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 5:19 PM, Eli Barzilay <eli at barzilay.org> wrote:
> 5 minutes ago, John Clements wrote:
>> I'm reading Aaron Stump's "Directly Reflective Meta-Programming,"
>> and it appears to me that either he misunderstands Scheme, or that I
>> misunderstand it.
>
> Sounds to me like the classic problem that some "symbolic" people have
> when they don't "get" hygiene (usually ending up in `defmacro'
> nostalgia where "symbols are symbols", possibly together with `eval'
> abuse).
>
>> Are there many Scheme dialects in which his use of quasiquote to
>> embed a 3d value would successfully pry open the syntactic term?
>
> (That lookes much more confused on a more basic level...)
>
> --
>          ((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x)))          Eli Barzilay:
>                    http://barzilay.org/                   Maze is Life!
> _________________________________________________
>  For list-related administrative tasks:
>  http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev
>