On 2/21/13, David A. Wheeler dwhee...@dwheeler.com wrote:
I said:
I have a *lot* of concerns with that particular construct.
Alan Manuel Gloria:
Why? Compare:
It's not must never happen, but I have a lot of concerns. Here are ones
that come to mind:
1. It really complicates
If back compatibility with Lisp in general was not an issue, what I
thought I'd do was, I'd be like this:
1. Disallow typical infix characters in typical identifiers.
Instead, symbols are either entirely composed of infix characters or
entirely composed of [A-Za-z_0-9].
1.1. This means
I just want to warn that this is entirely non-serious, except it is.
If you didn't have to worry about back-compat, what would you do?
On 2/21/13, Alan Manuel Gloria almkg...@gmail.com wrote:
If back compatibility with Lisp in general was not an issue, what I
thought I'd do was, I'd be like
Alan Manuel Gloria:
If back compatibility with Lisp in general was not an issue, what I
thought I'd do was, I'd be like this:
...
At that point, of course, it's a completely new language, not just a new
notation.
Nothing wrong with new languages, of course. Indeed, historically Haskell grew
Alan Manuel Gloria:
So, the problems with accepting this are:
1. The new syntax is complicated to explain informally.
2. It's easier to misuse. You have to be a bit more careful of your
indentation after the line that you use SUBLIST on.
3. It's not clear that the benefits are worth it
