[racket-dev] P4P: A Syntax Proposal

Okay, I just looked that up and I'm still not sure what you mean. :)

Robby

On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 1:09 PM, Shriram Krishnamurthi <sk at cs.brown.edu> wrote:
> 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
>