David A. Wheeler scripsit:

> Perhaps if people are willing to accept a change like that, they'd
> just keep going all the way to sweet-expressions,

I haven't yet studied sweet-expressions, but from your description I
gather they are a radical break with both s-expressions and c-expressions,
though including them within () and {} respectively.  I think that's
definitely a different level with different rules.

> Regarding the name "neoteric", John Cowan said:
> > (I also don't like the name; it makes me think of Theodore Sturgeon's
> > classic short story _Microcosmic God_.)
>
> Awesome, it's been a very long time since I've read that story.

For those wishing to follow along at home, the story is available at
<http://virgil.gr/1/MicroCosmicGod.pdf>.

> This notation was originally named "modern" expressions, but some
> people seemed to really dislike that name, and the obvious abbreviation
> ("m-expressions") was too easily confused with McCarthy's unrelated
> notation.

Indeed.  I thought of "functional expressions", since they use
conventional functional notation, but people might well associate
"f-expression" with "f-word".  Frankly, the name "symbolic expression"
doesn't make too much sense anyway for a representation of data: it is
not used in R[567]RS.

> Actually, I *like* the idea that Sturgeon's neoterics came up with
> neoteric-expressions.  IIRC, they created lots of advanced technologies
> - why not a Lisp notation :-) ?

"Some day the Neoterics, after innumerable generations of inconceivable
advancement, will take down their shield and come forth. When I think
of that I feel frightened."

--
A: "Spiro conjectures Ex-Lax."                  John Cowan
Q: "What does Pat Nixon frost her cakes with?"  xxxxxx@ccil.org
  --"Jeopardy" for generative semanticists      http://www.ccil.org/~cowan