|
This is a UseNet thread about the Dylan macro facilities with some examples showing that macros can be a language onto themselves. With some discussion of the limitations of Dylan macros compared to those in Common Lisp.
Bruce Holt: I find the ability for a single macro to expand into methods added to any number of Generic Functions to be incredibly powerful. I don't think this is matched by any other language other than CL. To me this is key to a large part of the power of Dylan macros and, combined with Dylan's sealing declarations and a powerful optimizing compiler, can do many things efficiently that would otherwise require full programmable code generation such as "aspects".
Me, I'm still on a tangent trying to figure out Dylan's use of module and library commands (macros?) and the relationship they have with the actual files. From what I gather, Dylan allows you to define different interfaces to a particular module based on the criteria of the user (sort of like Modula3 classes). But I can't seem to get my head wrapped around the specifics.
Posted to OOP by Chris Rathman on 5/9/02; 6:54:59 AM
|
Are dylan macros Turing-complete?
