[Openmcl-devel] Poll: what do you think of binding-block?

Greg Pfeil greg at clozure.com
Mon Feb 11 17:09:27 UTC 2008


On Sat, 2008-02-09 at 21:08 -0500, Kevin Reid wrote:
> On Feb 9, 2008, at 20:34, Ron Garret wrote:
> 
> > In the context of a debate over Paul Graham's new Arc language I  
> > wrote a macro called binding-block or BB for short.  The intent of  
> > the macro was to illustrate how the relentless pursuit of brevity  
> > would lead to some really perverse looking code.  But now,  
> > ironically, I've actually found binding-block kind of growing on  
> > me.  It's basically a keyword-based replacement for a bunch of  
> > binding constructs (LET, MULTIPLE-VALUE-BIND, DESTRUCTURING-BIND,  
> > and most WITH-XXX forms) kinda-sorta like LOOP is a keyword-based  
> > replacement for DO, DOTIMES, MAP, etc.
> 
> 
> Previous inventions of this idea:
> 
> http://www.cliki.net/bind

I use gwking's BIND ... same idea, but BIND doesn't eschew parens. I'm
not a fan of the BB look, nor do I like LOOP (I use ITERATE).




More information about the Openmcl-devel mailing list