Talk:Quasi-quotation

Philosophy: Logic / Language Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Logic
	Philosophy of language

Mathematics

	Mathematics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mathematics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MathematicsWikipedia:WikiProject MathematicsTemplate:WikiProject Mathematicsmathematics articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's priority scale.

Two things

One, Lisp makes use of quasiquotation, and its influenced other languages: the computer science link should be covered. Alan Bawden's paper Quasiquotation in Lisp (PS) is a good resource for this.

Two, George Boolos has a nice, short article in his "Logic, Logic and Logic" on a problem with quasiquotation that we would benefit from discussing. Can't remember the title. --- Charles Stewart^(talk) 06:05, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it would definitely be good to discuss quasiquotation in Lisp. I think the Boolos article you have in mind is "Quotational Ambiguity." However, it is not so much about quasi-quotation as about a more obscure difficulty (which he calls "Ernst's paradox" after the student who brought it to his attention) that can be encountered when attempting to use quotation in a strictly correct way. Ernst's paradox might be worth of its own article. I'll put it on my tentative to-do list. Dbtfz (talk - contribs) 20:45, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

accessibility

I reckon this page is pretty unaccessible for someone who isn't familiar with the subject (Edmund1989 18:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I cleared it up a little bit, but I probably need to come back to it. The order of explanation is a little weird. We should be saying how it does work before saying how it doesn't. KSchutte 06:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

""Quasiquote" redirects here. For the programming language escape character, see Backtick § Use in programming."

The vast majority of the backtick uses described in the link target (Backtick#Use in programming) are not called "quasiquote". That term is only used for a few - definitely Scheme, Scala, and Haskell - and perhaps only those. The sentence at the top of this article implies that quasiquote is synonymous with backtick, which is not the case. Instead, should it link individually to the Scheme, Scala, and Haskell articles?

I took a stab at simply rephrasing the sentence.

108.64.118.44 (talk) 06:15, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quantifying into quoted contexts

Robert Binkley 1970 and Yasutada Sudo 2008 seem relevant -- are they talking about the same problem and did they succeed in solving it? 2600:1009:B00B:B2B6:0:57:4C9B:A501 (talk) 20:41, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]