Just now, Alex Shinn wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 12:06 AM, Eli Barzilay <eli@barzilay.org> wrote:
>
>     Just now, Alex Shinn wrote:
>
>     > It's equivalent to writing a macro which can parse and optimize
>     > literal PCRE regex strings,
>
>     Absolutely, but that doesn't bother me because with the above `let' I
>     don't expect whatever to affect the meaning of a "foo+bar" string.
>
> [... general discussion of why strings are superior to sexps ...]

No, this was not an explanation of why strings are better than sexprs.
It was an explanation why I expect `+' to be `3' if it appears inside
(let ([+ 3]) --here--).  Putting the above words in my mouth is
dishonest.

> I never thought I'd have to explain this on a Scheme or Lisp related
> list,

I never thought that I'd need to explan hygiene or its benefits or how
scope works on a Scheme related list, let alone the list where the
supposed future of the language is discussed.

--
          ((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x)))          Eli Barzilay:
                    http://barzilay.org/                   Maze is Life!

_______________________________________________
Scheme-reports mailing list
Scheme-reports@scheme-reports.org
http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports