This page is part of the web mail archives of SRFI 105 from before July 7th, 2015. The new archives for SRFI 105 contain all messages, not just those from before July 7th, 2015.
David A. Wheeler scripsit:
> Perhaps if people are willing to accept a change like that, they'd
> just keep going all the way to sweet-expressions,
I haven't yet studied sweet-expressions, but from your description I
gather they are a radical break with both s-expressions and c-expressions,
though including them within () and {} respectively. I think that's
definitely a different level with different rules.
> Regarding the name "neoteric", John Cowan said:
> > (I also don't like the name; it makes me think of Theodore Sturgeon's
> > classic short story _Microcosmic God_.)
>
> Awesome, it's been a very long time since I've read that story.
For those wishing to follow along at home, the story is available at
<http://virgil.gr/1/MicroCosmicGod.pdf>.
> This notation was originally named "modern" expressions, but some
> people seemed to really dislike that name, and the obvious abbreviation
> ("m-expressions") was too easily confused with McCarthy's unrelated
> notation.
Indeed. I thought of "functional expressions", since they use
conventional functional notation, but people might well associate
"f-expression" with "f-word". Frankly, the name "symbolic expression"
doesn't make too much sense anyway for a representation of data: it is
not used in R[567]RS.
> Actually, I *like* the idea that Sturgeon's neoterics came up with
> neoteric-expressions. IIRC, they created lots of advanced technologies
> - why not a Lisp notation :-) ?
"Some day the Neoterics, after innumerable generations of inconceivable
advancement, will take down their shield and come forth. When I think
of that I feel frightened."
--
A: "Spiro conjectures Ex-Lax." John Cowan
Q: "What does Pat Nixon frost her cakes with?" cowan@xxxxxxxx
--"Jeopardy" for generative semanticists http://www.ccil.org/~cowan