[racket-dev] P4P: A Syntax Proposal

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