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.
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/