Earlier quoted context omitted.
I tinkered a bit (as many others have too!) with a lisp syntax for C, just to see what it'd feel like. That is, exact C semantics (so not inventing anything) but sexpressions. What I remember struggling with is that it was surprisingly kind of hard to remember when parens are necessary where. For example you might define an if statement: (if (> x 3) (printf ...)) Looks nice, but what about if you want multiple things…
(when (> x ) (printf a) (return b)) (cond ((> x 3) (printf a) (return b)) (( Nobody who works with Lisps thinks in terms of "do I need double parentheses". You just know that if takes two or three expressions, when takes an expression followed by zero or more forms, cond takes a sequence of zero or more clauses which consist of a test followed by a body of zero or more forms. If you're designing an S-exp syntax for s…
Re: Maybe adding generics to Go is about syntax after all
#91Yes, but you are describing how a lisp programmer would expect things to work. As my comment was saying, I was exploring whether a verbatim translation of C syntax works as sexeps, and where it fails.