2 ms·

I think in this case it is probably justified, as the claim of "no special syntax" is unfortunately not true. To convey the amount of special syntax, it got cra

I think in this case it is probably justified, as the claim of "no special syntax" is unfortunately not true. To convey the amount of special syntax, it got crammed into one brief example snippet. Still, far less than most other programming languages, virtue of having parentheses making things unambiguous. Outliers are Smalltalk and maybe (?) Forth.

jibal 2mo ago
> I think in this case it is probably justified What is "it"? The GP clearly doesn't understand that code and utterly misconstrues its nature and the nature of the Racket/Scheme/LISP language. If someone has zero knowledge of the topic at hand (even when it's a seminal programming language that's been around for nearly 70 years), they have an obligation to at least glance at TFA before commenting. > the claim of "no special syntax" is unfortunately not true That's a completely different issue than the one I addressed. (And I really don't think the point is made in good faith--the sense in which that phrase was meant is well understood, certainly by the GGP who is so very familiar with Racket's token syntax and quasiquotes.) I won't respond further.
so-cal-schemer 2mo ago
Aren't reader macros just a convenient shorthand?