Sign Up

Sign Up to our social questions and Answers Engine to ask questions, answer people’s questions, and connect with other people.

Have an account? Sign In

Have an account? Sign In Now

Sign In

Login to our social questions & Answers Engine to ask questions answer people’s questions & connect with other people.

Sign Up Here

Forgot Password?

Don't have account, Sign Up Here

Forgot Password

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.

Have an account? Sign In Now

You must login to ask a question.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.

Sign InSign Up

The Archive Base

The Archive Base Logo The Archive Base Logo

The Archive Base Navigation

  • SEARCH
  • Home
  • About Us
  • Blog
  • Contact Us
Search
Ask A Question

Mobile menu

Close
Ask a Question
  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Feed
  • User Profile
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Buy Points
  • Users
  • Help
  • Buy Theme
  • SEARCH
Home/ Questions/Q 33503
In Process

The Archive Base Latest Questions

Editorial Team
  • 0
Editorial Team
Asked: May 10, 20262026-05-10T13:55:52+00:00 2026-05-10T13:55:52+00:00

I have read a lot that LISP can redefine syntax on the fly, presumably

  • 0

I have read a lot that LISP can redefine syntax on the fly, presumably with macros. I am curious how far does this actually go? Can you redefine the language structure so much that it borderline becomes a compiler for another language? For example, could you change the functional nature of LISP into a more object oriented syntax and semantics, maybe say having syntax closer to something like Ruby?

Especially, is it possible to get rid of the parenthesis hell using macros? I have learned enough (Emacs-)LISP to customize Emacs with my own micro-features, but I am very curious how far macros can go in customizing the language.

  • 1 1 Answer
  • 0 Views
  • 0 Followers
  • 0
Share
  • Facebook
  • Report

Leave an answer
Cancel reply

You must login to add an answer.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

1 Answer

  • Voted
  • Oldest
  • Recent
  • Random
  1. 2026-05-10T13:55:52+00:00Added an answer on May 10, 2026 at 1:55 pm

    That’s a really good question.

    I think it’s nuanced but definitely answerable:

    Macros are not stuck in s-expressions. See the LOOP macro for a very complex language written using keywords (symbols). So, while you may start and end the loop with parentheses, inside it has its own syntax.

    Example:

    (loop for x from 0 below 100       when (even x)       collect x) 

    That being said, most simple macros just use s-expressions. And you’d be ‘stuck’ using them.

    But s-expressions, like Sergio has answered, start to feel right. The syntax gets out of the way and you start coding in the syntax tree.

    As for reader macros, yes, you could conceivably write something like this:

    #R{       ruby.code.goes.here   } 

    But you’d need to write your own Ruby syntax parser.

    You can also mimic some of the Ruby constructs, like blocks, with macros that compile to the existing Lisp constructs.

    #B(some lisp (code goes here)) 

    would translate to

    (lambda () (some lisp (code goes here))) 

    See this page for how to do it.

    • 0
    • Reply
    • Share
      Share
      • Share on Facebook
      • Share on Twitter
      • Share on LinkedIn
      • Share on WhatsApp
      • Report

Sidebar

Related Questions

I have read (or perhaps heard from a colleague) that in .NET, TransactionScope can
I have read a lot of popular standards manuals for open source PHP projects.
I have read a lot of articles on Dependency Injection as well as watched
I have read that using database keys in a URL is a bad thing
I have read this post about how to test private methods. I usually do
I have read on Stack Overflow some people that have converting to C#2.0 to
I have read the documentation on this and I think I understand. An AutoResetEvent
I have read through several reviews on Amazon and some books seem outdated. I
I have read about partial methods in the latest C# language specification , so
I have a project that adds elements to an AutoCad drawing. I noticed that

Explore

  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Users
  • Help
  • SEARCH

Footer

© 2021 The Archive Base. All Rights Reserved
With Love by The Archive Base

Insert/edit link

Enter the destination URL

Or link to existing content

    No search term specified. Showing recent items. Search or use up and down arrow keys to select an item.