On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 10:55 AM, Christian Vest Hansen <karmazi...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 4:42 PM, Mark Volkmann > <r.mark.volkm...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> I have an idea I'd like to float to see if there are reasons why it's >> a bad idea. >> >> What if Clojure had an alternate "surface" syntax that was translated >> into standard Clojure syntax by a kind of preprocessor? > > Do you by any chance mean "custom reader" when you say "preprocessor"? :)
No. This would be a translation step before the code is fed to the current Clojure reader. >> Many people that don't like Lisp dialects don't like them because of >> the parentheses. I'm trying to address that. > > How many of those have spend enough time with a lisp to form a valid > opinion of the syntax? The parens don't bother me. My concern though is that many people won't take the time to learn Clojure primarily because of the parens. The preprocessor would appease those people and not change anything for those that like Clojure just fine as it is. > Rule 4 is a special case that introduces inconsistency. I am against it. > > The syntax is basically introducing implicit parenthesis based on > indentation. That's correct. The preprocessor would be just like Python in that regard. People that don't like Python won't like this either. -- R. Mark Volkmann Object Computing, Inc. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
