On 20 Dec 2009, at 06:51, ajay gopalakrishnan wrote:
> Yes, Martin, please give it a try. Only then can we know if the parenthesis
> is real issue or not. There is no point arguing about it. The only
> disadvantage is that, over time, people will forget that it is actually a
> list. But, hey, if it does not prevent us from writing efficient and correct
> code then why not forget it and leave the compiler to worry about that.
> If possible, I would also want to see a macro that allows me to write (x < y)
> instead of (< x y).
I might try to knock up "optional parens inference for Clojure" and add in some
manner of curly infix as an exercise. It doesn't look like it will be too hard.
Since {} is taken for literal maps, I'd need something else for curly infix.
[|...|], %...%, $...$?
I'm sensing that most people seem to agree that S-exprs *are* fugly and hostile
to those new to Lisp, but that the alternative (significant whitespace) is even
worse. So we're kind of stuck with them if we want the expressive power of
homoiconicity.
It's just that I think there's ample reason to believe S-expressions are the
reason most people abandoned Lisp. It doesn't seem to be a great hook to get
people to try a new one.
Martin
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Clojure" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your
first post.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
