Archived at Internet Archive: mail/ Google Scholar RRRS-AUTHORS email with Subject: structures. In Proceedings of the 42nd Annual ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, POPL 2015, Mumbai, India, January 15-17, 2015. Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs. Harold Abelson, Gerald Jay Sussman, and with Julie Sussman.Archived at Internet Archive: https: ///web/20100413124637/ mail/ Google Scholar RRRS-AUTHORS email with Subject: Can we standardize Scheme without killing it?. Martín Abadi, Luca Cardelli, Pierre-Louis Curien, and Jean-Jacques Lévy.In Conference Record of the Seventeenth Annual ACM Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, San Francisco, California, USA, January 1990. Finally, we provide a short history of attempts to provide a formal account of macro processing. We then survey the ways in which hygienic macro technology has been adapted into recent non-parenthetical languages. The interplay between the desire for standardization and the development of new algorithms is a major theme of that story. In this paper, we summarize that early history with greater focus on hygienic macros, and continue the story by describing the further development, adoption, and influence of hygienic and partially hygienic macro technology in Scheme. Although this problem was recognized in the 1960s, it was 20 years before a reliable solution was discovered, and another 10 before a solution was discovered that was reliable, flexible, and efficient. However, na'ive macro expansion was a leaky abstraction, because the movement of a piece of syntax from one place to another might lead to the accidental rebinding of a program’s identifiers. The importance of those features is suggested by the ten pages devoted to macros in an earlier ACM HOPL paper, “The Evolution of Lisp.” The existence of that standard representation for uninterpreted abstract syntax trees soon led Lisp to a greater reliance upon macros than was common in other high-level languages.

As is well-known, this yields an abstraction mechanism that does things that procedural abstraction cannot, such as introducing new binding structures. This representation provides a convenient basis for macro processing, which allows the programmer to specify that some simple piece of abstract syntax should be replaced by some other, more complex piece of abstract syntax. The result of that parsing is a list structure that establishes a standard representation for uninterpreted abstract syntax trees. The fully parenthesized Cambridge Polish syntax of Lisp, originally regarded as a temporary expedient to be replaced by more conventional syntax, possesses a peculiar virtue: A read procedure can parse it without knowing the syntax of any expressions, statements, definitions, or declarations it may represent.

Macro to archive mac mail message