On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 14:36:08 -0800, Jeff Shannon wrote:
> I think that this sort of thing is better to have as an explicitly
> risky hack, than as an endorsed part of the language. The mere fact
> that this *is* something that one can clearly tell is working around
> certain deliberate limitati
Jeremy Bowers wrote:
You know, Guido might as well give in now on the Macro issue. If he
doesn't come up with something himself, apparently we'll just hack
bytecode.
Ah, hacking bytecode isn't where it's at anymore. These days, you use
the compiler package and munge the AST. Hygenic!
That said,
Jeremy Bowers wrote:
On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 12:59:07 -0800, Robert Brewer wrote:
You know, Guido might as well give in now on the Macro issue. If he
doesn't come up with something himself, apparently we'll just hack
bytecode. I'm not sure that's a gain.
I think that this sort of thing is better to ha
