It's not exactly the same. For example, there would be no
need to go through any contortions for dispatching and so forth.
Two calls to the macro would create two normal functions called
add_company and add_financial_data, which one would then just
use as usual.
E.g. the Lisp code might look something like this (first the macro is
defined, then it is called twice to create the methods, then
a couple of calls to the methods).:
The macro does indeed work something like the method of using
closures in the previous node - it takes a template for the
code that we want (the form following the backquote) and fills in the parts that we want to vary
(the forms introduced by ,).
There's no need for any of the dispatching contortions, though;
it's just as though we typed in the methods ourselves.
While Lisp macros are great for many more things than this,
they work well for this sort of thing as well, where pieces
of code have very similar form, which can then be easily and
naturally abstracted out.
Ohhh duh - I should have read his code closer :-). I think tilly's code example is nearly exactly what you want. Granted, it is indeed not quite as effortless as the macro in LISP and definitely less pretty.
Indeed, Tilly's node gives essentially the same solution
to the problem in Perlish form, but I didn't see it until after
I put mine up. (It's also the kind of solution I think it would be
easier to think of in Perl if one also knew Lisp - which Tilly
does.) Hopefully there's still some value in comparing.