Subject: Re: IF & AND redefined, why? From: Erik Naggum <erik@naggum.net> Date: 18 Apr 2001 23:04:41 +0000 Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp Message-ID: <3196623881130618@naggum.net> * Dr. Edmund Weitz > I just wanted to add that the technique used here is what Paul Graham > (in 'On Lisp') calls 'anaphoric macros'. If my memory serves me right, > there's a whole chapter about this technique. Let us improve on it, not accept it as gospel. I suggest, for instance, that we expose the bindings of the anaphoric variables, instead of using a "magic" variable whose binding is neither visible not changeable. > So, I think the guy who wrote the orginal code has been bashed enough. > I think he new what he did and he was just doing something that (under > certain circumstances, of course) is recommended in a book that almost > everybody seems to love. It is one of few books on Common Lisp, it is fairly recent, and it has a lot of merit to it, but I am not sure it is a "here are the facts" kind of book, nor "this is how you do it", but rather "this is what I do, and I think it's great". Mistaking it for any of the other types of book is going to hurt people. I highly value Paul Graham's insights and opinions and wouldn't want to be without them, _but_ I also think any reader of such a book should be a good student and question his master. Go not where he went, find out why he went where he did. Chances are the destination is an accident of circumstances, but his choices were not. #:Erik -- I found no peace in solitude. I found no chaos in catastrophe. -- :wumpscut: