[racket-dev] P4P: A Syntax Proposal

From: Shriram Krishnamurthi (sk at cs.brown.edu)
Date: Wed Jul 28 16:29:16 EDT 2010

Good, then you're not my target audience.

On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 4:00 PM, Jos Koot <jos.koot at telefonica.net> wrote:
> With a good editor, like that of DrSceme, pardon me, RdRacket, I experience
> no difficulty at all with parentheses. In fact I hardly see them. DrRacket
> shows me the extent of a subsexpr very micely. I would have, may be, a
> problem when parsing symbolic expressions lacking parenteses, unless, of
> course, reading a sexpr with omission of unecessary parentheses would give
> me an old fashioned parenthesized sexpr. I am not convinced, yet ...
> Jos
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: dev-bounces at racket-lang.org
>> [mailto:dev-bounces at racket-lang.org] On Behalf Of Shriram
>> Krishnamurthi
>> Sent: 28 July 2010 19:45
>> To: PLT Developers
>> Subject: [racket-dev] P4P: A Syntax Proposal
>> 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

Posted on the dev mailing list.