[erlang-questions] Erlang and syntax.

Duncan McGreggor <>
Sun Feb 23 23:35:21 CET 2014

On Sun, Feb 23, 2014 at 3:43 PM, Richard A. O'Keefe <>wrote:

> On 23/02/2014, at 10:33 AM, Mikhail Gusarov wrote:
> >> But when you see unknown function you still have no idea what it does
> and
> >> you have to figure it out. Any abstraction works in same way.
> >
> > There is subtle difference: all functions conform to the function
> > abstraction: function does not alter/capture names from calling
> > namespace and function does not arbitrarily transfer control. Function
> > is a simple abstraction: it accepts arguments and returns result.
> There is Lisp.  And then there is Scheme.
> Scheme define-syntax macros do NOT alter/capture names from
> the calling namespace.  They are said to be "hygienic."
> Thanks to throw/1, function calls CAN transfer control.
> (The Scheme analogue is call-with-current-continuation.)
> So a Scheme-flavoured-Erlang would conform to the claimed
> abstraction every bit as well as Erlang without any kind of
> macros.

LFE has come up a couple of times (yay!), but as for an Erlang Scheme,
there is this:

Also, I believe that Joxa is a Lisp-1 (though it does have unhygenic


> _______________________________________________
> erlang-questions mailing list
> http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://erlang.org/pipermail/erlang-questions/attachments/20140223/3503d101/attachment.html>

More information about the erlang-questions mailing list