Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="Series Expansion, post: 3863167"] Actually, you are; personal attacks like this do not constitute logical arguments in support of your position. They're sort of both. The function you refer to evaluates some code into other code, which is then substituted at the call site. The substitution at the call site, and substitution of the arguments for the formal parameters, are the defining features of a macro, and simultaneously are the cause of the variable-hiding, variable-capture, and multiple-evaluation issues. All of those issues arise automatically with macros and none of them arise with normal functions. So what I said about a kind of encapsulation barrier present with normal functions and lacking with macros remains unassailed. Changes to the innards of functions, such as renaming a local variable or rearranging the exact way it computes something, can be made that don't affect its computational semantics, and such changes can be made safely without breaking things at the function's call sites. Similarly semantically-null changes to macros can, however, break things at call sites. This is explained in more detail in some of my earlier posts. You have not refuted it either by calling me names or by saying that Lisp macros are functions. And the results lexically substituted for the call. This last, which you left out, is the most crucial point of difference. [/QUOTE]