At first I thought, how is this different than Honu?
If this isn't a reader, I don't see it being fundamentally different
from Honu. (Many of the same ideas are recreated, actually. The macro
slack term, for example, is exactly what Jon does.)
I think there is a place for a non-sexp reader like the @ reader, but
optimized for something other than text. But I don't like P4P's ad-hoc
set of special keywords like "defvar:" etc rather than a uniform rule.
If the parser has to know about these, then P4P is not extensible in
the same way as the sexp or @ readers.
A constructive suggestion: treat a trailing : as a special parser cue,
treating {s specially, taking the meaningful indentation ideas, etc.
Jay
On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 11:45 AM, Shriram Krishnamurthi <s...@cs.brown.edu>
wrote:
> I've been vexed for a while about parenthetical syntax: I love it,
> appreciate what it offers, but also recognize that no amount of
> teaching or arguing alters how people perceive it. With the switch to
> Racket, and our continuing interest in user interface issues, I
> believe it is wise to consider an optional alternate syntax.
>
> I finally had a breakthrough last weekend on how to create a syntax
> that may be more palateable without losing the essence of
> parenthetical syntax. As a preview, it does incorporate indentation,
> but in a good way. You'll see.
>
> Feedback welcome. The most important is whether you spot any flaws
> regarding predictable parsing.
>
> Here's a *non-permanent* URL where you can learn more:
>
> http://www.cs.brown.edu/~sk/tmp/P4P/
>
> Shriram
> _________________________________________________
> For list-related administrative tasks:
> http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev
>
--
Jay McCarthy <j...@cs.byu.edu>
Assistant Professor / Brigham Young University
http://teammccarthy.org/jay
"The glory of God is Intelligence" - D&C 93
_________________________________________________
For list-related administrative tasks:
http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev
