Not at all. The whole point is to have a syntax that is general, and not tied
to a particular semantic. Clearly it needs to be useful for a given semantic,
but not tied to it.
On October 26, 2014 10:43:17 PM EDT, John Cowan <co...@mercury.ccil.org> wrote:
>David A. Wheeler scripsit:
>
>> In Clojure, "{" is already taken for maps, and "#{" for sets. That
>interferes with {...} for infix.
>
>More importantly, [] is used to enclose lambda variables and in other
>situations in which Lisps use () for something other than application.
>I think that Readable would have to be substantially rethought, or at
>least enhanced greatly to understand the syntax (not just lexical
>syntax,
>but keyword syntax) of Clojure in order to be usable at all.
>
>--
>John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan co...@ccil.org
>Nobody expects the RESTifarian Inquisition! Our chief weapon is
>surprise ... surprise and tedium ... tedium and surprise ....
>Our two weapons are tedium and surprise ... and ruthless disregard
>for unpleasant facts.... Our three weapons are tedium, surprise, and
>ruthless disregard ... and an almost fanatical devotion to Roy
>Fielding....
--- David A.Wheeler------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Readable-discuss mailing list
Readable-discuss@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/readable-discuss
