Sort of, but I think the third bullet point is irrelevant: the correspondence of the visual syntax to the data structure representation isn’t really essential t

Sort of, but I think the third bullet point is irrelevant: the correspondence of the visual syntax to the data structure representation isn’t really essential to homoiconicity. The alternative syntax in http://readable.sourceforge.io http://readable.sourceforge.io is still homoiconic, despite being a somewhat different syntax for the same program. EDIT: If anything, I’d define homoiconicity by the ability to write the same program (as EVAL sees it) in a variety of different textual formats: e.g. ‘foo is equivalent to (quote foo) and both programs are indistinguishable to EVAL