So to summarize:
You suggest to
a) Break expressions like (comp <{:k1 5 :k2 6}) or {{:foo 5} 4} which
are legal and therefore used in production; when challenged you
propose additional workarounds that take a whole page to even
informally describe
b) Introduce the completely new notational convention of requiring
multiple closing tokens for one form; a set
Without even showing a page of code using said new syntax, let alone
make an effort to enumerate cases where it would break.
Furthermore you don't seem to recognize the gravity of those issues
and just keep focusing on hypothetical benefits, like a salesman.
We won't buy ideas before you can make us accept them. You can only
make us even consider accepting your ideas by demonstrating a coherent
view of the involved issues.
You can also do that by soliciting feedback to points you haven't
fully thought out. Just ignoring or trying to outweigh them with
promised benefits certainly won't help.
</rant>
Also this isn't bikeshedding, since syntax stability and orthogonality
of the language core aren't the proverbial bike shed but the very
power plant in lisp (and every usable language [by my definition of
usable])
So without calling any names, let me conclude with
*plonk*
--
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
Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your
first post.
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
