Python syntax in Lisp and Scheme

[Frode Vatvedt Fjeld]

prunesquallor at comcast.net writes:

> But syntactic abstractions *are* a change to the language, it just
> sounds fancier.

Yes, this is obviously true. Functional abstractions also change the
language, even if it's in a slightly different way. Any programming
language is, after all, a set of functional and syntactic
abstractions.

> I agree that injudicious use of macros can destroy the readability
> of code, but judicious use can greatly increase the readability.  So
> while it is probably a bad idea to write COND1 that assumes
> alternating test and consequence forms, it is also a bad idea to
> replicate boilerplate code because you are eschewing macros.

I suppose this is about the same differentiantion I wanted to make by
the terms "syntactic abstraction" (stressing the idea of building a
syntax that matches a particular problem area or programming pattern),
and "changing the language" which is just that, not being part of any
particular abstraction other than the programming language itself.

-- 
Frode Vatvedt Fjeld