That does sound like the right level, in that this isn't a new
"language" -- by design.
I started out by trying to create a new syntax; then I realized I
didn't need to; then that I didn't *want* to. By then I was locked
into this file structure and didn't come up for air. I probably
didn't peel off enough layers.
Before I can move forward, I still need to resolve the syntactic
ambiguity. As I understand it, Racket doesn't give me enough
information to distinguish {...} from (...) from [...]. Is that right
and, if so, is there any chance that will change? [Zodiac did that
<-;.] I don't want a solution that looks like "go look in the MrEd
buffer for...". I'd rather not do a reader extension for it because
the extra keystrokes will add up.
Shriram
_________________________________________________
For list-related administrative tasks:
http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev
