[racket-dev] P4P: A Syntax Proposal

From: Neil Van Dyke (neil at neilvandyke.org)
Date: Thu Jul 29 14:25:08 EDT 2010

Shriram, you can disregard my point.

I didn't do a good job of making the small point I intended: if one of 
the goals is to remove the kneejerk objection to sexp paren syntax 
(which I think is a familiarity thing), even after dispensing with sexp 
parens, you still have the things like the 
whoa-another-punctuation-character-what-does-it-mean "let*:", etc. 
making code look unfamiliar.

But I see that you've already stated that as not being within your 
problem scope, and/or you also have the mitigating internal "defvar", so 
you can disregard my point.


Posted on the dev mailing list.