Re: Are we done? Are other changes needed to maximize adoption? Alan Manuel Gloria 19 Sep 2012 01:35 UTC
On 9/18/12, Per Bothner <xxxxxx@bothner.com> wrote: > 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. I think this is the difference between Q2 and the readable-lisp project: Q2 wants to fit semantically nicely into a specific Lisplike, but the readable-lisp project wants to fit nicely into all Lisplikes. And the only real commonality between Lisplikes is the *List structure*. (they're not called List Processors for nothin'!) Lisplikes have many very different semantics: Lisp-1 or Lisp-2, list macros or hygienic syntaxes or vaus, dynamic or syntactic binding. But the representation of code in Lisplikes is the commonality: cons + symbols + end-of-list. And this is where the readable-lisp project (and one of its products, SRFI-105) comes from. Readable-lisp is a project to make a more readable representation for list structures of *all* kinds, be it code, data, or code of a completely different semantics. Sincerely, AmkG