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.

That's by I haven't commented on SRFI-105: it's a neat idea,
but I just don't see the point.  It doesn't go far enough.
Sweet-expressions go further, but are still too constrained
by syntactic compatibility.
--
	--Per Bothner
xxxxxx@bothner.com   http://per.bothner.com/