On Thu, 18 Sep 2003, Brian T Rice wrote:
> >
> > AFAIK, this "quasiquotation" was first *formalised* in Scheme (as part of
> > has been applied to the C language in the form of "`C" ("tick C" --
>
> Was there a point to this information?

Only that they represent macro systems too.  If I completely misunderstood
` in Slate I apologise.

> I also did not claim to have invented anything

I didn't claim that you had.

> I'm not sure what or whom you're trying to address here.

Noone -- just pointing out that rewriting ASTs is powerful (maybe too much
so).

> If you take "*is*" to mean "is sufficient", then yes, but a syntax tree is
> more than just a list: it has properties which are not adequately
> expressed as a chain of cons cells of the elements.

So decorate it. ;)

Or push properties onto symbols for the duration.  ;))

> I'm not arguing that information is
> withheld, I'm saying that the user can't get at it when they only have
> Lisp's standard Cons-cell representation of syntax trees,

See above.

> information can be retained.  And those objects /are/ user-level objects
> in Slate. It just happens that they have a domain orientation towards
> syntax, much as the elements of Smalltalk syntax trees, only more flexible
> and natural.

Fair enough. :)

> By the way, in case you forgot, I /am/ the language implementor. :)

Hadn't forgotten (and I wasn't talking about Slate anyway -- most of what
I said was coming from Lisp).

> You seem to associate the term meta-programming with anything
> implementation-related, whereas I'm just talking about programming at a
> level where programs are data, of which implementation meta-programming is
> a special case.

We agree then.

> A previous design for Slate was forth/lisp-like in its basic linguistic
> simplicity, but never went anywhere because it was too large a step for
> people to think in, including myself, and would never attract Forth users.

That's a pity -- I'd have liked to have seen it.

> PS: To explain my initial stance about replies: I much prefer brief
> replies

I've tried to use fewer words this time.

Cheers,
Ian