Edit Question - KnowledgeHub

Title Body

Why is the function/macro dichotomy present in Common Lisp? What are the logical problems in allowing the same name representing both a macro (taking precedence when found in function position in compile/eval) and a function (usable for example with mapcar )? For example having second defined both as a macro and as a function would allow to use (setf (second x) 42) and (mapcar #'second L) without having to create any setf trickery. Of course it's clear that macros can do more than functions and so the analogy cannot be complete (and I don't think of course that every macro shold also be a function) but why forbidding it by making both sharing a single namespace when it could be potentially useful? I hope I'm not offending anyone, but I don't really find a "Why doing that?" response really pertinent... I'm looking for why this is a bad idea. Imposing an arbitrary limitation because no good use is known is IMO somewhat arrogant (sort of assumes perfect foresight). Or are there practical problems in allowing it?

Tags (comma-separated) Cancel