Content deleted Content added
rvv -- DO NOT delete other people's talk page comments |
mNo edit summary |
||
Line 151:
These sections are POV, not to mention unsourced and very subjective. It reads like point->counter-point, where the last counter-point ends up being pro-scheme and in some cases anti-lisp. The disadvantage section itself is more like a "debunking disadvantages" section and it's funny that it's tiny in comparison to the advantages section anyway. I'm not even sure how things like curly/square brackets are an "advantage" over anything. Plus I question adding an "advantages" section in general to any programming language article. Most don't have a "advantages" section and for good reason, because you're not actually comparing it to anything except "every other programming language in existence," which isn't helpful. [[User:Njyoder|Nathan J. Yoder]] 05:42, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
== "Always built on" ==
''The hygienic macro system is always built on some low-level facility which provides the full power of non-hygienic macros, including arbitrary syntax-time computations.''
What does this mean? That every single Scheme implementation provides unhygienic macros in some way?
| |||