> { Point x 2 y 3 } I like your syntax, but wouldn't it be better as something like { Point :x 2 :y 3 } or maybe: { Point x: 2 y: 3 } that little bit o

> { Point x 2 y 3 } I like your syntax, but wouldn't it be better as something like { Point :x 2 :y 3 } or maybe: { Point x: 2 y: 3 } that little bit of extra punctuation (only needs to be a single character) is really helpful in making clear what is the field and what is the value. Syntactic minimalism is great, but sometimes it is taken a bit too far > Where here the $ in slot names means the corresponding value isn't evaluated If parameters have type declarations, why not make laziness part of the type instead of part of the name? I suppose it makes it clear at the invocation site that the parameter is lazy-evaluated. I wonder how important that is though? In Smalltalk, it is very clear, due to [] vs (). In most Lisps, you can't tell from the invocation site whether some symbol is an ordinary defun, or a special form or macro, you have to look up its definition or documentation. In my experience, that isn't a big problem – if you don't remember it, sooner or later you end up having to look it up anyway, to understand what the parameters mean and what it actually does.