Re: About the declare-flow-object-class

[Matthias Clasen <clasen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> 
> With the appropriate hooks, you could use this API to implement new flow
> objects. I think a better idea, though, is to add Scheme-style macros
> (expansion-passing style macros, not that syntax-rules stuff); then it is
> possible to turn some of the weirdo forms like "make" into macros and make
> them amenable to extension directly without any magic. I think crud like
> "element" and "mode" can be turned into macros which explicitly thread
> (currently implicit) "current-node" and "inherited-characteristics"
> variables through their bodies; if you add some new primitives, it can be
> done in a uniform, purely functional way by a CPS transformation (or monad),
> or just in an ad hoc fashion. For example,

I have often thought that macros would be a great way to reduce the 
special-expression-type mess of the current standard.


-- 
Matthias Clasen, 
Tel. 0761/203-5606
Email: clasen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Mathematisches Institut, Albert-Ludwigs-Universitaet Freiburg


 DSSSList info and archive:  http://www.mulberrytech.com/dsssl/dssslist