Didn"t forge 2011-08-12 22:24 采纳率: 25%
浏览 466
已采纳

惰性计算 vs 宏

I'm used to lazy evaluation from Haskell, and find myself getting irritated with eager-by-default languages now that I've used lazy evaluation properly. This is actually quite damaging, as the other languages I use mainly make lazily evaluating stuff very awkward, normally involving the rolling out of custom iterators and so forth. So just by acquiring some knowledge, I've actually made myself less productive in my original languages. Sigh.

But I hear that AST macros offer another clean way of doing the same thing. I've often heard statements like 'Lazy evaluation makes macros redundant' and vice-versa, mostly from sparring Lisp and Haskell communities.

I've dabbled with macros in various Lisp variants. They just seemed like a really organized way of copy and pasting chunks of code around to be handled at compile time. They certainly weren't the holy grail that Lispers like to think it is. But that's almost certainly because I can't use them properly. Of course, having the macro system work on the same core data structure that the language itself is assembled with is really useful, but it's still basically an organized way of copy-and-pasting code around. I acknowledge that basing a macro system on the same AST as the language that allows full runtime alteration is powerful.

What I want to know is, is how can macros be used to concisely and succinctly do what lazy-evaluation does? If I want to process a file line by line without slurping up the whole thing, I just return a list that's had a line-reading routine mapped over it. It's the perfect example of DWIM (do what I mean). I don't even have to think about it.

I clearly don't get macros. I've used them and not been particularly impressed given the hype. So there's something I'm missing that I'm not getting by reading over documentation online. Can someone explain all of this to me?

转载于:https://stackoverflow.com/questions/7046950/lazy-evaluation-vs-macros

  • 写回答

5条回答 默认 最新

  • 谁还没个明天 2011-08-12 22:55
    关注

    Lazy evaluation can substitute for certain uses of macros (those which delay evaluation to create control constructs) but the converse isn't really true. You can use macros to make delayed evaluation constructs more transparent -- see SRFI 41 (Streams) for an example of how: http://download.plt-scheme.org/doc/4.1.5/html/srfi-std/srfi-41/srfi-41.html

    On top of this, you could write your own lazy IO primitives as well.

    In my experience, however, pervasively lazy code in a strict language tends to introduce an overhead as compared to pervasively lazy code in a runtime designed to efficiently support it from the start -- which, mind you, is an implementation issue really.

    本回答被题主选为最佳回答 , 对您是否有帮助呢?
    评论
查看更多回答(4条)

报告相同问题?

悬赏问题

  • ¥15 PointNet++的onnx模型只能使用一次
  • ¥20 西南科技大学数字信号处理
  • ¥15 有两个非常“自以为是”烦人的问题急期待大家解决!
  • ¥30 STM32 INMP441无法读取数据
  • ¥15 R语言绘制密度图,一个密度曲线内fill不同颜色如何实现
  • ¥100 求汇川机器人IRCB300控制器和示教器同版本升级固件文件升级包
  • ¥15 用visualstudio2022创建vue项目后无法启动
  • ¥15 x趋于0时tanx-sinx极限可以拆开算吗
  • ¥500 把面具戴到人脸上,请大家贡献智慧,别用大模型回答,大模型的答案没啥用
  • ¥15 任意一个散点图自己下载其js脚本文件并做成独立的案例页面,不要作在线的,要离线状态。