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-boun...@racket-lang.org > [mailto:dev-boun...@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 _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev
