On 2011-09-24, Dave Abrahams <d...@boostpro.com> wrote: > Good point. I don't need a fancy syntax if I can express it with elisp, > of course. Maybe enabling that would be a good first step.
Agreed here also that fancy syntax is not necessary. IMO a good goal is actually to reduce syntax for new features rather than increase it. If new syntax is contemplated, extensible syntax (a specific proposal for a universal syntax that significantly reduces parsing risk and does not require the user to try to look up the meanings of symbols) might be useful.
