Macros are used in many languages to resolve issues that the language for one reason or another doesnt address directly, to fill in the cracks so to speak. I dont see why a language that has appropriate other features necessarily needs a defined macro mechanism. Some of the more common uses for macros are: Templating, Inlining and Conditional Compilation. If a language provides other means of accomplishing these tasks then I see no reason for the language to define a macro language. OTOH, if a language doesnt provide these features, then any arbitrary macro preprocessor will provide then if needed. And when I say any arbitrary macro preprocessor I mean anything from perl to borrowing the C preprocessor for the job.
Which kind of leads me to my main point. Perl doesnt need a macro language because it is a better macro preprocessor than anything else out there all by itself. With closures and eval, source code filters and funky things like BEGIN/INIT blocks and friends, Perl doesnt need anything that a macro preprocessor can provide.
Anybody who thinks that having a macro facility indicates that a L is FSP obviously hasn't noticed VB's macros.
In reply to Re: Macros, LFSPs and LFMs
by demerphq
in thread Macros, LFSPs and LFMs
by stefp
For: | Use: | ||
& | & | ||
< | < | ||
> | > | ||
[ | [ | ||
] | ] |