merits of Lisp vs Python

[greg]

Ken Tilton wrote:

> What if it turns into an SQL lookup during refactoring?

If the macro can produce SQL code, then whatever interprets the
table can produce SQL code as well.

If you're thinking of the macro taking apart the user's reverse
function (rather than just wrapping it) and somehow translating
it into SQL, well... a macro *could* do that, but it would be
an awfully hairy thing to do, especially if the user is allowed
to write arbitrary Lisp code in the body of his function (as
it seems he is, in your example).

A better way would be to design an abstract API for the user
to use in his reverse functions. Then you can just re-implement
the functions making up the API so that they do SQL queries
instead of whatever they were doing before. No macro processing
needed then.

> The last example showed the macro inserting code to magically produce a 
> binding inside the reverse function.

Are you sure? It looked to me like it was adding code *around*
the reverse function, not inside it. I posted a Python function
that achieves the same thing by calling the existing reverse
function.

> It would be easier to compare and 
> contrast with the Python equivalent if someone had posted such, but your 
> troops have fallen back to Fort So What? and pulled up the drawbridge.

I'm still trying, but some of the code you posted is rather
impenetrable without knowing a lot more about the details of
your system. I'm doing my best to show some Python demonstrating
the gist of what could be done.

--
Greg