Re: Woohoo! My macros are now (semi) hygienic

On Feb 22, 12:46 am, Ron Garret <rNOSPA...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
It is now possible to write safe modular macros in Common Lisp without packages.

But I don't want to write anything other than throwaway code without
using packages.

I don't use packages just for the sake of macros.

 No more symbol name conflicts!

Is that so?

;; in Bob's library:

(ldefun myfun ...)

;; in Jack's library

(ldefun myfun ...)

Load both and no conflict? We can dispense with packages now?
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Woohoo! My macros are now (semi) hygienic
    ... (ldefun myfun ...) ... Load both and no conflict? ... We can dispense with packages now? ...
    (comp.lang.lisp)
  • Re: demonic numbers !
    ... macros on all the digits and the decimal point in order to hijack ... Lisp source that contained package-qualified symbol names without ... necessarily defining the packages (He wanted to do some level of ...
    (comp.lang.lisp)
  • Re: organizing lisp code
    ... how are lisp packages packaged? ... Macros that are local to a single file can go there. ... Similarly for general purpose STRUCTURE definitions. ...
    (comp.lang.lisp)
  • CTAN Update: oberdiek bundle -- hyphsubst v0.2 & letltxmacro v1.0
    ... New packages: ... A TeX format file may include alternative hyphenation patterns ... TeX's \let assignment does not work for LaTeX macros ...
    (comp.text.tex)
  • Re: learning more about macros
    ... Probably best to get an understanding of what macros can do, ... can do with them, before looking at packages. ... Maybe start with VBA For ...
    (microsoft.public.excel.misc)