[racket-dev] P4P: A Syntax Proposal

I disagree.  I think parens are synecdoche.

Shriram

On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 1:28 PM, Robby Findler
<robby at eecs.northwestern.edu> wrote:
> FWIW, I think you're probably right that "parens" are actually code
> for "I don't want to think so hard" so while an alternative syntax may
> take away one excuse, language design and libraries and good docs and
> tutorials all the other things are probably going to be required as
> well to really make the language a success.
>
> Robby
>
> On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 12:19 PM, Joe Marshall <jmarshall at alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 3:06 PM, Everett <webj2 at unoc.net> wrote:
>>> I've always thought the problem was the parens.
>>
>> I don't believe this.  If the parens were the problem, then why didn't
>> M-expressions gain popularity?  Why didn't CGOL?  Why didn't Dylan?
>> Why hasn't *any* alternative syntax helped? (Honu, anyone?)
>>
>> And why aren't parens a problem in C:
>>
>>          if (unlikely(!access_ok(VERIFY_READ, iocbpp, (nr*sizeof(*iocbpp)))))
>>                return -EFAULT;
>>
>> or Java?
>>
>>        private static void defCategory(String name,
>>                                        final int typeMask) {
>>            map.put(name, new CharPropertyFactory() {
>>                    CharProperty make() { return new Category(typeMask);}});
>>        }
>>
>> --
>> ~jrm
>> _________________________________________________
>>  For list-related administrative tasks:
>>  http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev
>>
> _________________________________________________
>  For list-related administrative tasks:
>  http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev