comment on

> Arguably, Common Lisp macros are a preprocessor, itself written in Lisp; consider the MACROEXPAND and MACROEXPAND-1 builtins from this perspective

Nope. Syntactic macros are lightyears ahead of preprocessor stuff.

Source filters are fancy preprocessors and failed to deliver because they require an extra parsing phase and understanding of the grammar at a distance.

Lisp macros look like functions but expand in the very same parsing phase, no confusion here. Eg a macro in a comment will never be expandend!

And they get their arguments as code before it's evaluated and can reconfigure it. Eg a deeply nested peace of syntax.

That's incredibly powerful.

Switch.pm (and so many things more) as syntactic macro would actually really work.

Cheers Rolf
_{(addicted to the Perl Programming Language :)

Wikisyntax for the Monastery}

In reply to Re^4: Amicable divorce (Macros) by LanX
in thread Amicable divorce by ribasushi

Are you posting in the right place? Check out Where do I post X? to know for sure.
Posts may use any of the Perl Monks Approved HTML tags. Currently these include the following:
<code> <a> <b> <big> <blockquote> <br /> <dd> <dl> <dt> <em> <font> <h1> <h2> <h3> <h4> <h5> <h6> <hr /> <i> <li> <nbsp> <ol> <p> <small> <strike> <strong> <sub> <sup> <table> <td> <th> <tr> <tt> <u> <ul>
Snippets of code should be wrapped in <code> tags not <pre> tags. In fact, <pre> tags should generally be avoided. If they must be used, extreme care should be taken to ensure that their contents do not have long lines (<70 chars), in order to prevent horizontal scrolling (and possible janitor intervention).
Want more info? How to link or How to display code and escape characters are good places to start.


go ahead... be a heretic
	PerlMonks