Named code blockes

[Douglas Alan]

"Alex Martelli" <aleaxit at yahoo.com> writes:

> One genius clamored for a huge new mechanism that would at last, in
> the Plenitude of Glory, let him write "let x = y" versus "set x = y"
> so he'd get ``declarations'' -- and then, when somebody showed him
> how easily he could set things up so as to write "let.x = y" and
> "set.x = y", he claimed his coworkers would kill him if he
> programmed that way.  Well isn't that obvious, that being able to
> have a SPACE there instead of a PERIOD is the be-all, end-all of
> programming?!  Isn't it _absolutely_ obvious that placing a period
> there will lead to justified homicide...?

Thank you, Mr. Martelli, for the deference that you show to others
whose opinions differ.  You are a model for us all.

I'd like to point out, however, that you have reduced my position to
an absurdity.  There are a number of other reasons to avoid the
proposed solution than only the difference between a "." and a space.
Having to set up the mechanism independently for every single scope is
only one.  The fact that local variables and function parameters would
be treated differently is another.  The fact that it is inefficient is
yet another.  And yet there are more.  Perhaps in the future you could
be so kind as to address the real complaints.

Also, I'd like to mention that I just saw a panel held at MIT of four
very esteemed language and compiler designers.  Two of the four
panelists indicated that hygienic macros are an *essential* feature
for future languages in order to allow for them to grow and to
adequately support solving domain-specific problems.  Domain-specific
languages are essential, they said, for reducing complexity in many
difficult problems, and hygienic macros are one of the best ways of
accomplishing this.  They also said that language designers who claim
to be able to foresee all the syntactic forms that the users of a
language will require, are "undeservedly arrogant".

The other two panel members did not dispute this claim.

|>oug