From ...
From: Erik Naggum <erik@naggum.no>
Subject: Re: Are macros really a neccessity, or a coverup of  languagedeficiencies?
Date: 2000/04/26
Message-ID: <3165769025251773@naggum.no>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 616068296
References: <390371F0.36455F4E@makif.omer.k12.il> <pmqem7w5w45.fsf@lang.genworks.com> <8e07hr$g86$1@news.campuscwix.net> <3903A68C.809F7F98@san.rr.com> <3903BD4C.228B6B20@fisec.com> <3903C3B9.71E8EF71@san.rr.com> <m33dobqgka.fsf@world.std.com> <2h66t6r32w.fsf@dslab7.cs.uit.no> <m3em7t8ugk.fsf@world.std.com> <2hog6xbaz0.fsf@dslab7.cs.uit.no> <m3r9bsbyl1.fsf@world.std.com>
mail-copies-to: never
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Complaints-To: newsmaster@eunet.no
X-Trace: oslo-nntp.eunet.no 956783098 2509 195.0.192.66 (26 Apr 2000 21:04:58 GMT)
Organization: Naggum Software; vox: +47 8800 8879; fax: +47 8800 8601; http://www.naggum.no
User-Agent: Gnus/5.0803 (Gnus v5.8.3) Emacs/20.5
Mime-Version: 1.0
NNTP-Posting-Date: 26 Apr 2000 21:04:58 GMT
Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp

* Tom Breton <tob@world.std.com>
| All else being equal, it's better to make fewer transformations on
| your code; it's less machinery to think about.  IMO.  Don't you
| agree?

  I don't agree with this silliness.  good macros are abstractions.
  I also don't agree with your view of optimization, which seems to
  include manual macroexpansion and reducing the amount of work no
  human being should ever be doing in the first place.  I'm also glad
  you don't read this, as I would hate to see the silly response.

#:Erik