do...until wisdom needed...

Alex Martelli aleaxit at yahoo.com
Wed Apr 18 10:07:29 EDT 2001


"Neelakantan Krishnaswami" <neelk at alum.mit.edu> wrote in message
news:slrn9dpnnd.hs0.neelk at alum.mit.edu...
> On Tue, 17 Apr 2001 00:03:38 +0200, Alex Martelli <aleaxit at yahoo.com>
wrote:
> >
> > Yes, 'hygienic macros' WOULD help cut these discussions short.  Pity
> > this benefit (basically restricted to c.l.p) would be balanced by
> > the productivity loss engendered by the actual existence of such
> > macros in the language -- a language which may have ANY 'syntactic
> > feature' ensures any given program is impossible to understand
> > unless you first study the exact set of macros used by its
> > author:-).
>
> I note that precisely the same argument can be made about adding
> functions to a language.

Reality easily proves that your "note" is a falsehood: despite the
existence of functions in Python, Usenet STILL buzzes with long
discussions by people who whine about Python not having their
favourite doodad.  Their existence doesn't cut these discussions
short.  So, how can you make this statement?

If the difference in power between functions and macros is not
clear to you, maybe a refresher in first-order versus higher-
order logic might help.  This power applies to both discussion-
cutting abilities and confusion-generation potential.


Alex






More information about the Python-list mailing list