What is meta? ×
Meta Stack Exchange is where users like you discuss bugs, features, and support issues that affect the software powering all 131 Stack Exchange communities.

Is tagging for the following question appropriate? Why or why not?

When did the idea of macros (user-defined code transformation) appear?

Tags: macros lisp scheme history forth

For example, should forth be included?

share|improve this question

2 Answers 2

up vote 2 down vote accepted

I don't really think [forth] fits. It mentions the Forth language, but it's not actually about it. If the question was rephrased as to include a sentence like "Did the first Forth implementation already have "IMMEDIATE", then the tag would fit.

The current way it's talked about is a passing minor detail.

That said, unless there's another tag that would be more appropriate, I wouldn't remove it.

share|improve this answer
    
There is also the question of museum / academic implementations and those that are actually used. I'd leave it also. Not all implementations since epoch 0 need to be considered. –  Tim Post Jun 18 '10 at 19:37

I think it's okay. The second bullet-point makes a point about Forth (emphasis added):

What was the first programming language implementation to have Lisp-like macros (by "Lisp-like" I mean "using a readable Turing-complete language to do code-transformation")? (including non-Lisps -- Forth for example is quite old, but I'm not sure if the first Forth implementation already had "IMMEDIATE")

Since Forth may or may not be part of the answer to the question it makes sense to bring it to the attention of any Forth programmers by using the tag.

share|improve this answer

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .