Python syntax in Lisp and Scheme

[Doug Tolton]

Andrew Dalke wrote:

> Me:
> 
>>>Note that I did not at all make reference to macros.  Your statements
>>>to date suggest that your answer to the first is "no."
> 
> 
> Doug Tolton:
> 
>>That's not exactly my position, rather my position is that just about
>>anything can and will be abused in some way shape or fashion.  It's a
>>simple fact of working in teams.  However I would rather err on the side
>>of abstractability and re-usability than on the side of forced
> 
> restrictions.
> 
> You are correct.  I misremembered "Tolton" as "Tilton" and confused
> you with someone else.  *blush*

Heh, yeah I've noticed that a couple of times.  Poor Kenny keeps getting 
blamed for things I've said.  D'oh!
> 
> My answer, btw, that the macro preprocessor in C is something
> which is useful and too easily prone to misuse.  Eg, my original
> C book was "C for native speakers of Pascal" and included in
> the first section a set of macros like
> 
> #define BEGIN {
> #define END }

I agree the C macro system is constantly abused.  Then again, I haven't 
ever been a really big fan of the C macro system, primarily because even 
if it's used correctly it has always struck me as an ugly hack.  I don't 
think that's because it's overly expressive and powerful though, rather 
I think it's because of it's limitations and foreign feeling syntax.
> 
> It's not possible to get rid of cpp for C because the language
> is too weak, but it is something which takes hard experience to
> learn when not to use.
> 
> As for a language feature which should never be used.  Alex Martelli
> gave an example of changing the default definition for == between
> floats, which broke other packages, and my favorite is "OPTION
> BASE 1" in BASIC or its equivalent in Perl and other langauges.
> That is, on a per-program (or even per-module) basis, redefine
> the 0 point offset for an array.

Again, I can see setting corporate wide policies that specify if you 
change the OPTION BASE, we are going to take you out behind the shed and 
beat you silly.  I don't think the existence of OPTION BASE is a 
problem, personally I think it's when someone decides they want to 
change the OPTION BASE to 0 while everyone else is still using 1.  That 
doesn't necessarily imply that OPTION BASE is by itself and evil construct.
-- 
Doug Tolton
(format t "~a@~a~a.~a" "dtolton" "ya" "hoo" "com")