6 ms·
Dear Paul, when I say its syntax is its best friend, that's exactly what I'm talking about. Now, say I fork lisp and change one little thing: (defun foo (n) (
by TweedHeads 17y ago
Dear Paul, when I say its syntax is its best friend, that's exactly what I'm talking about.
Now, say I fork lisp and change one little thing:
(defun foo (n) (lambda (i) (incf n i)))
to this:
[defun foo [n] [lambda [i] [incf n i]]]
or even this:
{defun foo {n} {lambda {i} {incf n i}}}
or how about this?
<defun foo <n> <lambda <i> <incf n i>>>
Hmm, trees are powerful, no matter how they are expressed huh?
What if we can represent the same trees using colons and commas as delimiters?
:defun foo:n, :lambda:i, :incf n i.
Maybe spice it up a bit using periods as recursive closing delimiter.
See? still powerful trees!
Between common lisp and colon lisp, I still use the latter.
Love is blindness.
- TweedHeads 17y agoTaking a closer look at my macbook keyboard, of all the lisp forks, I'd go with squared brackets [lisp] for convenience. Ergonomics win.
- Kw2987 17y agoIf that's the only thing stopping you, just tweak your editor's keymappings.
- pg 17y agoSure, trees are powerful no matter how you delimit them. Most Lisp hackers would be fine with using {}, [], or <> if they had to. What Lisp hackers like is programming in lists, not parens per se. I don't see what you're trying to claim. Initially you seemed to be saying that you preferred conventional sytax to sexprs. I pointed out that this meant you had to give up macros. You reply that you could use other characters to delimit sexprs. Sure, but so what?