Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!ub!boulder!grunwald From: grunwald@foobar.colorado.edu (Dirk Grunwald) Newsgroups: comp.lang.scheme Subject: Re: Scheme as the only extension language Message-ID: <25349@boulder.Colorado.EDU> Date: 29 Aug 90 16:10:14 GMT References: Sender: news@boulder.Colorado.EDU Reply-To: grunwald@foobar.colorado.edu Distribution: comp.lang.scheme Organization: University of Colorado at Boulder Lines: 19 In-reply-to: ramsdell@mitre.org's message of 28 Aug 90 10:57:44 GMT r>PostScript-like system? How would you integrate the text with Scheme r>code? -- I think that integrating the scheme code with the text is a BAD IDEA in both TeX and postscript. Consider attempting to TeX a portion of a document; you can't, because the global state can set stuff waaaay in the front of the document. By distinguishing the macros/functions from the text, you gain the ability to process document fragments. I like Emacs where you don't define C-mode functions in the middle of e.g., your C programs. This is more like SGML systems, and why systems like The Publisher use SGML and impose a similar restriction (no macros in the middle of your file).