Tomasz Wegrzanowski wrote:
> On 7/25/06, Ola Bini <ola.bini / ki.se> wrote:
> But I haven't really seen any serious examples where one macro system
> is definitely better than another - like "we often want to do X, this is 
> easy
> in Common Lisp, but Scheme disallows it" or "we often want to do Y,
> in Scheme we can do that directly, but in Common Lisp we have to use
> such and such hacks or it breaks". It would be nice if some Lispers
> described the issue for the rest of us :-)
> 

Actually, the reason people never say "we often want to do X, this is 
easy in Common Lisp, but Scheme disallows it" is that all Scheme 
implementations feature "real" macros outside the standard. Some things 
are not doable with only semantic extensions. Take a look at meeron for 
example; it _needs_ real macros to create an object oriented system 
inside Scheme.

-- 
  Ola Bini (http://ola-bini.blogspot.com)
  JvYAML, RbYAML, JRuby and Jatha contributor
  System Developer, Karolinska Institutet (http://www.ki.se)
  OLogix Consulting (http://www.ologix.com)

  "Yields falsehood when quined" yields falsehood when quined.