Python syntax in Lisp and Scheme

[Rob Hunter]

On Sunday, October 12, 2003, at 04:21 PM, Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 
wrote:

> Pascal Costanza <costanza at web.de> wrote previously:
> |The point here is that for most languages, if you want to add some
> |syntax, you have to change the definition of the language, extend the
> |grammar, write a parser, extended a compiler and/or interpreter, maybe
> |even the internal bytecode representation, have wars with other users 
> of
> |the language whether it's a good idea to change the language that way,
> |and so forth.
>
> Wow!  This is the clearest argument against macros I have seen yet.
>
> These are -exactly- the kinds of difficulties I want to exist before 
> the
> syntax of my programming language can be changed--it should need
> committment, effort, and clear and arguable reasons... not be something
> someone can cavalierly do on an impulse.

Let's just all code in assembly.  I shouldn't be able to make a 
recursive call on an impulse.  It'll be really slow going and so we'll 
have to think really hard about each line and thus are programs will 
come out better.
...
It's not like adding a macro permanently will change your language.  If 
you find a bug, or decide later that the macro wasn't a good idea, 
erase the five lines of code.  No one ever said that Scheme programs 
don't have bugs.

Rob