|
|
|
|
|
|
by plinkplonk
6004 days ago
|
|
|
PG on newLisp a long time ago "I took a quick look at it. It looked to me as if the way you're supposed to avoid variable capture is to use variables with unusual names. Is this really the plan? What about expansions that occur within expansions?" http://lambda-the-ultimate.org/node/257#comment-1889 |
|
|
1. use of "contexts" i.e. Newlisp namespaces
2. use of same approach as in CL or Scheme macros. In CL it is automatic generation of unusual names, gensyms, in Scheme it is even more automatic "hygiene". Both of these approaches are available in Newlisp as well. One can check my blog post at: http://kazimirmajorinc.blogspot.com/2009/12/symbols-as-sexpr... It is not simple reading if one didn't used dynamic scope, but essentially it is how one can write hygienic fexprs (Newlisp macros are actually fexprs).
3. use of some "OO" additions. I am bit of OO sceptic, but for those who are not, there are at least two OO systems for Newlisp.
3.1. Official FOOP system, still in development http://newlispfanclub.alh.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=...
3.2. Greg's OO system http://www.taoeffect.com/blog/2009/12/introducing-objective-...