Should we MAY a "curly-write" and "neoteric-write"? Or even "sweet-write"? David A. Wheeler 09 Apr 2013 21:56 UTC
Re: Should we MAY a "curly-write" and "neoteric-write"? Or even "sweet-write"? Mark H Weaver 09 Apr 2013 23:34 UTC
Re: Should we MAY a "curly-write" and "neoteric-write"? Or even "sweet-write"? David A. Wheeler 10 Apr 2013 00:14 UTC
Re: Should we MAY a "curly-write" and "neoteric-write"? Or even "sweet-write"? David A. Wheeler 10 Apr 2013 00:24 UTC
Re: Should we MAY a "curly-write" and "neoteric-write"? Or even "sweet-write"? David A. Wheeler 10 Apr 2013 04:11 UTC
Re: Should we MAY a "curly-write" and "neoteric-write"? Or even "sweet-write"? John Cowan 10 Apr 2013 01:56 UTC
Re: Should we MAY a "curly-write" and "neoteric-write"? Or even "sweet-write"? David A. Wheeler 10 Apr 2013 03:00 UTC
Re: Should we MAY a "curly-write" and "neoteric-write"? Or even "sweet-write"? John Cowan 10 Apr 2013 06:29 UTC
Re: Should we MAY a "curly-write" and "neoteric-write"? Or even "sweet-write"? David A. Wheeler 11 Apr 2013 02:26 UTC
Re: Should we MAY a "curly-write" and "neoteric-write"? Or even "sweet-write"? David A. Wheeler 11 Apr 2013 22:37 UTC
First cut at "curly-write" and "neoteric-write" with -shared and -cyclic versions David A. Wheeler 14 Apr 2013 22:29 UTC
Draft updated SRFI-110 and reference implementation David A. Wheeler 15 Apr 2013 04:09 UTC
Re: First cut at "curly-write" and "neoteric-write" with -shared and -cyclic versions beni.cherniavsky@xxxxxx 02 May 2013 08:00 UTC
Re: First cut at "curly-write" and "neoteric-write" with -shared and -cyclic versions David A. Wheeler 02 May 2013 22:46 UTC
Re: First cut at "curly-write" and "neoteric-write" with -shared and -cyclic versions David A. Wheeler 14 May 2013 00:47 UTC

Re: Should we MAY a "curly-write" and "neoteric-write"? Or even "sweet-write"? David A. Wheeler 11 Apr 2013 02:26 UTC
I've attached a first-cut draft of curly-write and neoteric-write (they're really -simple versions).  The code is not so long that it'd be hard to put in an implementation.. but it's long enough that you'd like to have them in an implementation.

Below are outputs from curly-write, followed by outputs from neoteric-write, given the same expressions.  I think they're reasonable.

--- David A. Wheeler

'x
(a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z)
(a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z . 2)
{a + b}
{a + b + c}
(+ a b c . improper)
(sin (- theta))
(fact {n - 1})
(calculate (pi))
(between current min max)
(my-write . rest)
(sin x)
(- x)
(-)
(function +)
(map + '(2 4 6))
(current-time)
(1 2 3)
(4 5 . 6)
5
boring-symbol
{sqrt(x) + sqrt(y)}
`(1 2 ,@{a + b})
#'(a b c)
#( v1 v2 {2 + 3} (sin x) )
(define (is-infix-operator? x) (cond ((not (symbol? x)) #f) ((memq x special-infix-operators) #t) (#t (contains-only-punctuation? (string->list (symbol->string x))))))
fin

'x
(a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z)
(a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z . 2)
{a + b}
{a + b + c}
+(a b c . improper)
sin{- theta}
fact{n - 1}
calculate(pi())
between(current min max)
my-write(. rest)
sin(x)
-(x)
-()
function(+)
map(+ '(2 4 6))
current-time()
(1 2 3)
(4 5 . 6)
5
boring-symbol
{sqrt(x) + sqrt(y)}
`(1 2 ,@{a + b})
#'a(b c)
#( v1 v2 {2 + 3} sin(x) )
define(is-infix-operator?(x) cond((not(symbol?(x)) #f) (memq(x special-infix-operators) #t) (#t contains-only-punctuation?(string->list(symbol->string(x))))))
fin