通用Lisp宏本质上扩展了代码的“语法原语”。

例如，在C语言中，switch/case结构只适用于整型，如果你想将它用于浮点数或字符串，你就只能使用嵌套的if语句和显式比较。你也不可能编写一个C宏来为你做这项工作。

但是，由于lisp宏(本质上)是一个lisp程序，它接受代码片段作为输入，并返回代码来替换宏的“调用”，因此您可以尽可能地扩展您的“原语”库，通常最终会得到一个更可读的程序。

要在C中做同样的事情，您必须编写一个自定义预处理器，它会吃掉您的初始(不完全是C)源代码，并吐出C编译器可以理解的东西。这不是一种错误的方法，但它不一定是最简单的。

简而言之，宏用于定义通用Lisp或领域特定语言(dsl)的语言语法扩展。这些语言直接嵌入到现有的Lisp代码中。现在，dsl可以具有与Lisp相似的语法(如Peter Norvig的用于通用Lisp的Prolog解释器)，也可以具有完全不同的语法(例如用于Clojure的中缀符号数学)。

这里有一个更具体的例子:Python在语言中内置了列表推导式。这为常见情况提供了简单的语法。这条线

divisibleByTwo = [x for x in range(10) if x % 2 == 0]

生成一个包含0到9之间所有偶数的列表。在Python 1.5版本中还没有这样的语法;你可以使用类似这样的语句:

divisibleByTwo = []
for x in range( 10 ):
   if x % 2 == 0:
      divisibleByTwo.append( x )

它们在功能上是等价的。让我们暂停怀疑，假设Lisp有一个非常有限的循环宏，它只做迭代，没有简单的方法来做等价的列表推导。

在Lisp中，您可以编写如下代码。我应该指出，这个虚构的例子与Python代码相同，而不是Lisp代码的好例子。

;; the following two functions just make equivalent of Python's range function
;; you can safely ignore them unless you are running this code
(defun range-helper (x)
  (if (= x 0)
      (list x)
      (cons x (range-helper (- x 1)))))

(defun range (x)
  (reverse (range-helper (- x 1))))

;; equivalent to the python example:
;; define a variable
(defvar divisibleByTwo nil)

;; loop from 0 upto and including 9
(loop for x in (range 10)
   ;; test for divisibility by two
   if (= (mod x 2) 0) 
   ;; append to the list
   do (setq divisibleByTwo (append divisibleByTwo (list x))))

在我进一步讨论之前，我应该更好地解释什么是宏。它是一个代码对一个代码执行的转换。也就是说，由解释器(或编译器)读取的一段代码，将代码作为参数，进行操作并返回结果，然后在适当的位置运行。

当然，这需要大量的输入，而且程序员很懒。所以我们可以定义DSL来做列表推导。事实上，我们已经在使用一个宏(循环宏)。

Lisp defines a couple of special syntax forms. The quote (') indicates the next token is a literal. The quasiquote or backtick (`) indicates the next token is a literal with escapes. Escapes are indicated by the comma operator. The literal '(1 2 3) is the equivalent of Python's [1, 2, 3]. You can assign it to another variable or use it in place. You can think of `(1 2 ,x) as the equivalent of Python's [1, 2, x] where x is a variable previously defined. This list notation is part of the magic that goes into macros. The second part is the Lisp reader which intelligently substitutes macros for code but that is best illustrated below:

因此，我们可以定义一个名为lcomp(列表理解的缩写)的宏。它的语法将完全像我们在示例中使用的python [x for x in range(10) if x % 2 == 0] - (lcomp x for x in (range 10) if (= (% x 2) 0)))

(defmacro lcomp (expression for var in list conditional conditional-test)
  ;; create a unique variable name for the result
  (let ((result (gensym)))
    ;; the arguments are really code so we can substitute them 
    ;; store nil in the unique variable name generated above
    `(let ((,result nil))
       ;; var is a variable name
       ;; list is the list literal we are suppose to iterate over
       (loop for ,var in ,list
            ;; conditional is if or unless
            ;; conditional-test is (= (mod x 2) 0) in our examples
            ,conditional ,conditional-test
            ;; and this is the action from the earlier lisp example
            ;; result = result + [x] in python
            do (setq ,result (append ,result (list ,expression))))
           ;; return the result 
       ,result)))

现在我们可以在命令行执行:

CL-USER> (lcomp x for x in (range 10) if (= (mod x 2) 0))
(0 2 4 6 8)

很整洁，是吧?现在还不止于此。你有一个装置，或者画笔，如果你喜欢的话。你可以使用任何你想要的语法。就像Python或c#的语法一样。或者。net的LINQ语法。最终，这就是Lisp吸引人们的地方——极致的灵活性。

一行程序回答:

简单的语法=>宏over表达式=>简洁=>抽象=>强大

Lisp宏只是以编程方式编写代码。也就是说，在展开宏之后，您得到的只不过是没有宏的Lisp代码。所以，原则上来说，他们没有什么新成就。

然而，它们与其他编程语言中的宏不同，它们在表达式级别上编写代码，而其他宏在字符串级别上编写代码。这在lisp中是独一无二的，这要感谢他们的括号;或者更准确地说，它们的最小语法多亏了括号。

正如本文中的许多示例所示，以及Paul Graham的On Lisp, Lisp宏可以成为使代码更加简洁的工具。当简洁性达到一定程度时，它为代码提供了新的抽象级别，使其更加简洁。回到第一点，原则上他们没有提供任何新的东西，但这就像说既然纸和铅笔(几乎)组成了图灵机，我们就不需要真正的计算机。

如果你懂点数学，想想为什么函子和自然变换是有用的想法。原则上，它们没有提供任何新东西。然而，通过将它们扩展到较低层次的数学中，你会发现几个简单想法的组合(就范畴理论而言)可能需要10页才能写下来。你喜欢哪一种?

您将在这里找到关于lisp宏的全面辩论。

这篇文章的一个有趣的子集:

In most programming languages, syntax is complex. Macros have to take apart program syntax, analyze it, and reassemble it. They do not have access to the program's parser, so they have to depend on heuristics and best-guesses. Sometimes their cut-rate analysis is wrong, and then they break. But Lisp is different. Lisp macros do have access to the parser, and it is a really simple parser. A Lisp macro is not handed a string, but a preparsed piece of source code in the form of a list, because the source of a Lisp program is not a string; it is a list. And Lisp programs are really good at taking apart lists and putting them back together. They do this reliably, every day. Here is an extended example. Lisp has a macro, called "setf", that performs assignment. The simplest form of setf is (setf x whatever) which sets the value of the symbol "x" to the value of the expression "whatever". Lisp also has lists; you can use the "car" and "cdr" functions to get the first element of a list or the rest of the list, respectively. Now what if you want to replace the first element of a list with a new value? There is a standard function for doing that, and incredibly, its name is even worse than "car". It is "rplaca". But you do not have to remember "rplaca", because you can write (setf (car somelist) whatever) to set the car of somelist. What is really happening here is that "setf" is a macro. At compile time, it examines its arguments, and it sees that the first one has the form (car SOMETHING). It says to itself "Oh, the programmer is trying to set the car of somthing. The function to use for that is 'rplaca'." And it quietly rewrites the code in place to: (rplaca somelist whatever)

lisp宏以程序片段作为输入。这个程序片段被表示为一个数据结构，可以按照您喜欢的任何方式进行操作和转换。最后，宏输出另一个程序片段，这个片段是在运行时执行的。

c#没有宏功能，但是如果编译器将代码解析为CodeDOM树，并将其传递给一个方法，该方法将其转换为另一个CodeDOM，然后将其编译为IL，则会有等效的宏功能。

这可以用来实现“糖”语法，如for each-statement using-clause, linq select-expressions等等，作为转换为底层代码的宏。

如果Java有宏，您就可以在Java中实现Linq语法，而不需要Sun更改基本语言。

下面是在c#中实现lisp风格的宏的伪代码:

define macro "using":
    using ($type $varname = $expression) $block
into:
    $type $varname;
    try {
       $varname = $expression;
       $block;
    } finally {
       $varname.Dispose();
    }

In python you have decorators, you basically have a function that takes another function as input. You can do what ever you want: call the function, do something else, wrap the function call in a resource acquire release, etc. but you don't get to peek inside that function. Say we wanted to make it more powerful, say your decorator received the code of the function as a list then you could not only execute the function as is but you can now execute parts of it, reorder lines of the function etc.