-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Dec 7, 2003, at 4:53 PM, bear wrote:
> No, I think this is too complicated. We're talking more about
> this as syntax than as list structure anyway; I think that
> making people think in terms of list structure would just
> confuse the issue.
>
> My recommendation is keep it simple:
>
> ...
> (... ...)
> (... ... ...)
> (... ... ... ...)
>
> etc, to match existing practice.
>
> 			Bear

I'm not sure what you mean about thinking in terms of list structure -
I don't see how this is forcing people to think in terms of list
structure any more than, say, dotted lambda lists. The list structure
here is necessary to make the idea consistent; "..." only makes sense
if you explicitly aren't thinking about the list structure (otherwise
you'd think that "(...)" would be the first in the pattern). With
dotted lists, "..." really is the first in the pattern - just like
lambda lists, where we have (lambda rest ...), (lambda (firstarg .
rest) ...), et al.

Secondly, just because something is existing practice doesn't mean it's
been well thought out. It's not as if this isn't an easy change to make
in source code: M-% ... ...)<ENTER>... . ...)<ENTER>

- --
Brian Mastenbrook
xxxxxx@cs.indiana.edu
http://cs.indiana.edu/~bmastenb/

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 8.0.3

iQA/AwUBP9O/ymnXQDi0istxEQKX2gCcD/UieI4pBolJ2cdGdBe0LcUnJVMAn0hC
wwZ7UxslLvrOcj9EkQgMsuZj
=GLHZ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----