🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Sep30.175841.19500@cs.cornell.edu> tyan@cs.cornell.edu (Thomas Yan) writes:

   In article <TMB.92Sep29100759@arolla.idiap.ch>, tmb@arolla.idiap.ch (Thomas M. Breuel) writes:
   |> In article <DBM.92Sep28220940@ai.allegra.att.com> dbm@allegra.att.com (Dave MacQueen) writes:
   |> 
   |>    Actually, I would prefer to move further away from Lisp style syntax.
   |>    One of the unfortunate aspects of SML syntax is the overloading and
   |>    consequent over-use of parentheses.  Parentheses play three main
   |>    roles:
   |> 
   |>     (1) grouping (this is the most fundamental role)
   |> 
   |>     (2) bracketing tuples as in (1, true, "abc")
   |> 
   |>     (3) bracketing sequence expressions, as in (print "a"; print "b")
   |>
   |> And I don't see much of a conflict between (1) and (2); in particular,
   |> I like the fact that function calls with tupled arguments look
   |> "normal" ("f(x,y,z)") right now.

   i guess i might be missing the point here.  by (1), i thought this 
   referred to expressions like f(g(h(k x))) having tons of parens, vs.
   f g h k x, which has none.  i don't see how this relates to your
   comments.

McQueen was suggesting using different syntax for constructing tuples.
I very much object to that, since the current syntax makes tupled
function calls (the most common case of function call, unless you
happen to curry everything) look "normal":

	f(x,y,z)

looks much nicer to me than something like

	f[< x, y, z >]

					Thomas.