popematt
commented
1 month ago Something like this can solve both of those complaints.
| Macro | Expression Group | |
|---|---|---|
| E-Expr | (:foo) |
(:: foo) |
| TDL | (;foo) |
(;; foo) |
Although the use of ; for macros is unexpected, and ;; looks rather jarring. Using a different operator symbol character as the sigil in TDL could be easier to read. E.g.:
| Macro | Expression Group | |
|---|---|---|
| E-Expr | (:foo) |
(:: foo) |
| TDL | (.foo) |
(.. foo) |
Though not as lisp-y, the . operator has some precedence in popular programming languages for invoking methods, so this usage will not be completely foreign to people learning TDL.
As a side-effect of this change, we would no longer need to escape s-expressions in TDL (see #343). If we need a s-expression that starts with . we only need to wrap the . in a literal clause.
Multiple early users and implementers have complained about the expression group syntax. The distinction between
(:foo)and(: foo)is easy to miss. Also, there is asymmetry between this and the TDL equivalents—(foo)and(; foo)respectively.