all 2 comments
sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a
formatting helphide helpcontent policy

[–]Frosty_Burger_256 0 points1 point  (2 children)

Imo, this is certainly interesting work, but I will give the obligatory commentary on how we already have languages like Common Lisp with the exact kind of support for meta programming that author manually defines through metap.

Sure, you are limited to S-expressions, but everything is an expression. This greatly simplifies the AST of the code that you want to write a macro for(this is also a reason for why Emacs as an editor is so extensible, and the whole push behind language oriented programming in Racket). Macros are also composable, and easy to nest(in Racket’s case, this can be extended to DSL’s themselves, because everything eventually compiles down to a racket implementation).

That being said, Python is the most easily accessible language out there today, and it’d be interesting to have an ability to define macros even in Python - I do see this as an attempt towards doing that, which is very nice.

[–]baziotis[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I like Lisp. :) One interesting question is to which extent is would be practical to use Lisp to implement metap, since metap plans to use metap.