Comments on: Arc-macros, baby. Arc-macros. http://4.flowsnake.org/archives/53 A Pythoneer's adventures with Scheme, Clojure and a whole lot more. ^_^ Wed, 03 Feb 2010 16:32:41 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Konrad http://4.flowsnake.org/archives/53/comment-page-1#comment-71 Konrad Tue, 05 Feb 2008 11:06:36 +0000 http://4.flowsnake.org/archives/53#comment-71 > The additional "syntax" (which is actually, creating a class that > defines "~", and then wrapping functions in it) seems to be more > trouble than it's worth. Absolutely - it's not very pythonic to introduce some magic like this. Still, it was an interesting excercise. > The additional “syntax” (which is actually, creating a class that
> defines “~”, and then wrapping functions in it) seems to be more
> trouble than it’s worth.

Absolutely – it’s not very pythonic to introduce some magic like this. Still, it was an interesting excercise.

]]> By: Hans Nowak http://4.flowsnake.org/archives/53/comment-page-1#comment-55 Hans Nowak Thu, 31 Jan 2008 21:08:42 +0000 http://4.flowsnake.org/archives/53#comment-55 But, so it's correct to call them "read macros"? But, so it’s correct to call them “read macros”?

]]> By: John Cowan http://4.flowsnake.org/archives/53/comment-page-1#comment-54 John Cowan Thu, 31 Jan 2008 20:22:22 +0000 http://4.flowsnake.org/archives/53#comment-54 Read macros like $ and ~ are expanded at read time, (ordinary) macros are expanded at compile time (even the interpreter "compiles" at least to that extent). Read macros like $ and ~ are expanded at read time, (ordinary) macros are expanded at compile time (even the interpreter “compiles” at least to that extent).

]]>