tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26866996.post6237862612538930732..comments2023-05-16T03:14:55.163-05:00Comments on JFKBits: Call by Need Lambda a Poor Man's Macro?Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26866996.post-80766575109924154582008-05-28T10:35:00.000-05:002008-05-28T10:35:00.000-05:00reginald braithwaite: Yes, if you have macros, you...reginald braithwaite: Yes, if you have macros, you don't need this "macro substitute", and I think it sounds possible to do what you suggest. Perhaps it was confusing for me to use Scheme, which has its famous macro system, to describe the lazy-lambda implementation. My focus is on the languages without macros. My inspiration is my employer's language, Mathematica, which has numerous evaluation controls but no macro system per se, and still it lets you define your own control structures and looping constructs, and object-oriented frameworks (a la Common LISP) at will. My reasoning was that language implementers may not be comfortable designing and implementing macros, but adding a variation of lambda, particularly if the language already has strict lambda, is quite straightforward and should give users the evaluation control otherwise missing.<BR/><BR/>Out of curiosity, why do you ask?JFKBitshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13511809355394591863noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26866996.post-13762983476028451172008-05-27T22:43:00.000-05:002008-05-27T22:43:00.000-05:00Given macros and strict lambda, isn't it possible ...Given macros and strict lambda, isn't it possible to define lazy-lambda without resorting to changing the interpreter?Reginald Braithwaitehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13132345822387028437noreply@blogger.com