Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!rutgers!ucsd!pacbell.com!pacbell!att!cbnewsc!lgm
From: lgm@cbnewsc.att.com (lawrence.g.mayka)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc
Subject: Re: Efficient Fortran
Message-ID: <1990Aug4.173959.29564@cbnewsc.att.com>
Date: 4 Aug 90 17:39:59 GMT
References: <8E+4_83@ggpc2.ferranti.com> <2426@l.cc.purdue.edu> <TED.90Aug3120910@kythera.nmsu.edu>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 19

In article <TED.90Aug3120910@kythera.nmsu.edu> ted@nmsu.edu (Ted Dunning) writes:
>parsed by a static parser.  if you allow new operators and new
>precedences, then you get into the serious problem of needing to
>extend the parser in non-trivial ways *at compile time*.  the lisp
>community has been trying to get this just right for decades and is
>still trying.  prolog newcomers still cause insiders to giggle by

I think the Common Lisp community finds lexical extension (macro
characters) quite useful and syntactic extension (macros) absolutely
essential.  Your "still trying" barb seems to be an attack on the very
process of experimentation, growth, development, standardization, and
extension inherent in the introduction of new technology.


	Lawrence G. Mayka
	AT&T Bell Laboratories
	lgm@iexist.att.com

Standard disclaimer.