[REBOL] Re: Slashdot REBOL mention
From: joel:neely:fedex at: 2-Nov-2001 10:54
Romano Paolo Tenca wrote:
> Hi, Ladislav
> > Rebol can easily handle blocks, which can be basically considered
> > sentences of the language. The interesting consequence of that is,
> > that as opposed to C, Rebol will never have any macro language,
> > because Rebol is a macro language for itself.
> > (Don't you like that?)
> Yes, also if, to me, is not clear the true difference between a
> macro and a non-macro language.
I'd prefer to say that REBOL doesn't *need* a distinct macro
In a programming language context, I believe it's fair to say that
language X is being *used as* a macro language if one is using it
write code that creates source code. This is particularly
to programming language implementations that (as is typical with
run source code thru a compiler to produce object code when then
able to be run.
Languages which can
* interpret (or compile on demand) newly-constructed code, and
* explore and manipulate the run-time representation of their
can serve as their own macro language, thus eliminating the need
learning a separate syntax and performing a separate processing
Such languages include LISP and REBOL.
Of course, it's entirely possible to write code (in whatever
one wishes) that would construct REBOL source code. In such a
one would be using that other language as a REBOL macro-language
(but without "official" sanction, of course! ;-)
As for the discussion of syntax, I'm working on an article now
will address some aspects (and consequences) of REBOL's choice of