On 09/17/2012 08:29 AM, John Cowan wrote:
And of couple people are used to parenthesis as grouping.For SRFI-105 to fit nicely into Scheme, () has to work the way it works in vanilla Scheme; the same is true with sweet-expressions.
I was responding to "If you're allowed to *change* the syntax of Scheme ...", which means () can work the way most people not fluent in Lisp/Scheme expect.
I think "fit *semantically* nicely into Scheme" is a good goal. The goal "fit *syntactically* nicely into Scheme" means you constrain the design too much so you no longer have a language that is appealing to parenthesis-phobes and others of the target community. That's by I haven't commented on SRFI-105: it's a neat idea, but I just don't see the point. It doesn't go far enough. Sweet-expressions go further, but are still too constrained by syntactic compatibility. -- --Per Bothner per@xxxxxxxxxxx http://per.bothner.com/