[racket] Another Canonical Use of Macros?

The Indiana school of macrology in the early 1980s. Eugene, Bruce, and I used this to teach macros to undergrads but Dan Friedman may have implicitly formulated them before Eugene sketched them out and Bruce and I wrote them down. 


On Jan 9, 2014, at 1:45 AM, Ben Duan wrote:

> What is the source of  "three canonical categories"?
> 
> Thanks,
> Ben
> 
> 
> On Sat, Nov 23, 2013 at 2:46 PM, John Clements <clements at brinckerhoff.org> wrote:
> I'm preparing a 10-minute lightning talk on hygienic macros in rust (preview: I'm barely going to *mention* hygiene), and in the process, I've been surveying some of the Rust macros, and roughly categorizing them in terms of the "three canonical categories" that Matthias described--apologies if I'm misrepresenting him/you:
> - changing evaluation order,
> - implementing a data sublanguage, and
> - creating new binding forms.
> 
> Some of the Rust macros seem to fall into a fourth category, which arises from the fact that certain things are not expressions:
> 
> - abstracting over things that are not expressions.
> 
> For instance:
> 
> cmp_impl!(impl Eq, eq, ne)
> cmp_impl!(impl TotalEq, equals)
> cmp_impl!(impl Ord, lt, gt, le, ge)
> cmp_impl!(impl TotalOrd, cmp -> cmp::Ordering)
> 
> Each of these expands into a top-level "impl" declaration, extending implementations of, e.g., Ord, from type T to type Ratio<T>.
> 
> More generally, it seems to me that every time you constrain first-class-ness by making things not-first-class (e.g. module-level stuff in Racket), you will be required to use macros to abstract over these things.
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> Back to writing my talk...
> 
> John
> 
> 
> ____________________
>   Racket Users list:
>   http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
> 
> ____________________
>  Racket Users list:
>  http://lists.racket-lang.org/users

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.racket-lang.org/users/archive/attachments/20140109/046c1859/attachment.html>