Re: Double unquote/unquote-splicing

[Nathan Trapuzzano <nbtrap@nbtrap.com>]

"Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen@xemacs.org> writes:

> "It's pretty, so it must be right" is a fallacy.

I haven't argued in these terms at all.

>  > In summary, this change would
>  > 
>  > 1. break nothing,
>  > 2. require virtually no work to be done,
>  > 3. render macro-writing macros easier to read and write; and
>  > 4. bring Elisp behavior right in line with CL and Scheme.
>  > 
>  > Even if you disagree with (3), this seems like a win all around.
>
> AFAICS, (1) hasn't been properly checked, and one can also disagree
> with (4), as phrased.  There will still be plenty of differences in
> behavior.  Only nested backquotes (an infrequently used facility) will
> be synchronized.

I suspect Stefan would agree with me about (1).  This proposal would
allow syntax that currently signals an error.  If your code doesn't
already throw said error, this won't change anything.

As for (4), of course I only meant _in this instance_ Elisp semantics
would be equivalent to CL's and Scheme's.

> I'm not really against this, but if it makes Stefan uneasy, I'll side
> with Stefan's ambiguous intuition against the rather tenuous claims in
> favor.

I think the only claim that can be legitimately said to be "tenuous" is
(3), given its subjective nature.  It seems to me that the other points
are simply true.