Good, then you're not my target audience.
On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 4:00 PM, Jos Koot <jos.k...@telefonica.net> wrote: > 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
