[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Are we done? Are other changes needed to maximize adoption?

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 9/18/12, Per Bothner <per@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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.

I think this is the difference between Q2 and the readable-lisp
project: Q2 wants to fit semantically nicely into a specific Lisplike, but
the readable-lisp project wants to fit nicely into all Lisplikes.  And the
only real commonality between Lisplikes is the *List structure*.
(they're not called List Processors for nothin'!) Lisplikes have many
very different semantics: Lisp-1 or Lisp-2, list macros or hygienic
syntaxes or vaus, dynamic or syntactic binding.  But the
representation of code in Lisplikes is the commonality: cons +
symbols + end-of-list.  And this is where the readable-lisp project
(and one of its products, SRFI-105) comes from.  Readable-lisp is a
project to make a more readable representation for list structures of
*all* kinds, be it code, data, or code of a completely different