Re: Very poor Lisp performance

Jon Harrop <usenet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> > There's certainly no concept of "macroexpansion time" and "run time" like
> > there is in CL,
>
> So you cannot use macros to generate code to generate macros to generate
> code in Lisp?

Sigh. Of course you can. I'm beginning to wonder about your
reasoning abilities. I mean, how in the world did you "infer" _that_
from what was said?


/Jon

--
'j' - a n t h o n y at romeo/charley/november com
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Lisp semantics vs. Mathematica semantics
    ... Jon Harrop wrote: ... Macros are often used to partially specialise HOFs ... Dr Jon D Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy ...
    (comp.lang.lisp)
  • Re: Very poor Lisp performance
    ... Jon Harrop writes: ... >>> The problem is that ML trades macros and dynamic typing for a faster ... >> No, macros are purely syntactic. ... how you would go about getting the type inferencing with full ...
    (comp.lang.lisp)
  • Re: Lisp syntax vs. Mathematica syntax
    ... > Jon Harrop wrote: ... I would imagine that most Lisp code is run-time and not macros. ...
    (comp.lang.lisp)
  • Re: macro for shorter array syntax
    ... On May 16, 2:08 am, Jon Harrop wrote this ... Macros have been around for a long time and they never got serious traction ...
    (comp.lang.lisp)
  • Re: Very poor Lisp performance
    ... Jon Harrop writes: ... > Peter Seibel wrote: ... >>> So you cannot use macros to generate code to generate macros to ... > I assume he meant Lisp is evaluated like this: ...
    (comp.lang.lisp)