Re: Problem with the lambda form

In article <7dvkd0F2eiasoU3@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Pascal Costanza <pc@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

What a colossal failure of imagination.

Is it necessary to use insults?

If the shoe fits. See below...

...but you actually changed the internals of two implementations (IIRC),

The depends on how you define "changing the internals". I took a stock
CL, and simply loaded a small amount of code (<100 lines) into it to
produce that result. Obviously, that code is not ANSI CL. But I did
not have to rebuild the Lisp to do what I did.

so this is an example where the claim that you can implement any
language feature using just macros does not hold.

I never claimed that you could implement any language feature using just
macros. All I said was that the claim that macros could only do local
code rewrites was false.

On top of that, you actually didn't even implement a new language
feature, you just provided alternative syntactic sugar for a feature
that's already part of Common Lisp.

I chose that example not because it's an earth-shattering new feature,
but because it's something that many people would say (and have said) is
not possible to do. Those people are clearly wrong. The only point I
want to make is that very few things are actually impossible in Lisp,
and more often than not when someone says that something is impossible
it is because they are bringing to bear some tacit but unwarranted
assumption, hence "a failure of imagination."