I'd love to hear lots of feedback about how well or poorly Parendown works for people. :)

I'm trying to think of what kind of feedback would actually get me to change it. :-p Basically, I added it because I found it personally helped me a lot with maintaining continuation-passing style code, and the reason I found continuation-passing style necessary was so I could implement programming languages with different kinds of side effects. There are certainly other techniques for managing continuation-passing style, side effects, and language implementation, and I have some in mind to implement in Racket that I just haven't gotten to yet. Maybe some combination of techniques will take Parendown's place.

---

If it's just the #/ you object to, yeah, my preferred syntax would be / without the # in front. I use / because it looks like a tilted paren, making the kind of zig-zag that resembles how the code would look if it used traditional parens:

  (
    (
      (
  /
  /
  /

Do you think I should switch Parendown to use / like I really want to do? :) Is there perhaps another character you think would be better?

---

What's that about "the impression of a single unified block"? I think I could see what you mean if the bindings were all mutually recursive like `letrec`, because then nesting them in a specific order would be meaningless; they should be in a "single unified block" without a particular order. I'm not recommending Parendown for that, only for aw's original example with nested `let`. Even in Parendown-style Racket, I use local definitions for the sake of mutual recursion, like this:

  /...
  /let ()
    (define ...)
    (define ...)
    (define ...)
  /...

a) Use indentation.

b) If indentation isn't absolutely clear, just use parens.

Here's another comment that may help clarify what I mean: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8503353#8507385

(I have no objection to replacing parens with say square brackets or curlies or something. I just think introducing new delimiters isn't worthwhile unless we're getting something more for it than just minimizing typing or making indentation uniform. Syntactic uniformity is Lisp's strength.)

I can certainly see how I would feel differently when programming in certain domains (like CPS). But I'm not convinced ideas that work in a specific domain translate well to this thread.

"What's that about "the impression of a single unified block"? I think I could see what you mean if the bindings were all mutually recursive like `letrec`, because then nesting them in a specific order would be meaningless; they should be in a "single unified block" without a particular order. I'm not recommending Parendown for that, only for aw's original example with nested `let`."

Here's aw's original example, with indentation:

    (def foo ()
      (var a (...))
      (do-something a)
      (var b (... a ...))
      (do-something-else b)
      (var c (... b ...))
      etc...)

(I also like that aw is happy with parens ^_^)

Edit: Reflecting some more, another reason for my reaction is that you're obscuring containment relationships. That is inevitably a leaky abstraction; for example error messages may require knowing that `#/let` is starting a new scope. In which case I'd much rather make new scopes obvious with indentation.

I realize you also just said the example's bindings aren't mutually recursive, but I think if `a` and `c` "have the same scope" then `b` could depend on `c` as easily as it depends on `a`, so it seems to me we're talking about a design for mutual recursion. So what you're saying is the example could have been mutually recursive but it just happened not to be in this case, right? :)

Yeah, I think the most useful notions of "local definitions" would allow mutual recursion, just like top-level definitions do. It was only the specific, non-mutually-recursive example that led me to bring up Parendown at all.

---

The rest of this is a response to your points about Parendown. Some of your points in favor of not using Parendown are syntactic regularity, the clarity of containment relationships, and the avoidance of syntaxes that have little benefit other than saving typing. I'm a little surprised by those because they're some of the same reasons I use Parendown to begin with.

Let's compare the / reader macro with the `withs` s-expression macro.

I figure Lisp's syntactic regularity has to do with how long it takes to describe how the syntax works. Anyone can write any macro they want, but the macros that are simplest to describe will be the simplest to learn and implement, helping them propagate across Lisp dialects and thereby become part of what makes Lisp so syntactically regular in the first place.

- The / macro consumes s-expressions until it peeks ) and then it stops with a list of those s-expressions.

- The `withs` macro expects an even-length binding list of alternating variables and expressions and another expression. It returns the last expression modified by successively wrapping it lexical bindings of each variable-expression pair from that binding list, in reverse order.

Between these two, it seems to me `withs` takes more time and care to document, and hence puts more strain on a Lisp dialect's claim to syntactic regularity. (Not much more strain, but more strain than / does.)

A certain quirk of `withs` is that it creates several lexical scopes that are not surrouded by any parentheses. In this way, it obscures the containment relationship of those lexical scopes.

If we start with / and `withs` in the same language, then I think the only reason to `withs` is to save some typing.

So `withs` not only doesn't pull its weight in the language, but actively works against the language's syntactic regularity and containment relationship clarity.

For those reasons I prefer / over `withs`.

And if I don't bother to put `withs` in a language design, then whenever I need to write sequences of lexical bindings, I find / to be the clear choice for that.

Adding `withs` back into a language design isn't a big deal on its own; it's just slightly more work than not doing it, and I don't think its detriment to syntactic regularity and containment clarity are that bad. I could switch back from / to `withs` if it was just about this issue.

That's a good point that I hadn't considered, thanks. Yeah, I guess I'm not as opposed to obscuring containment as I'd hypothesized ^_^

Maybe my reaction to (foo /a b c /d e f) is akin to that of a more hardcore lisper when faced with indentation-based s-expressions :)

Isn't there a dialect out there that uses a different bracket to mean 'close all open parens'? So that the example above would become (foo (a b c (d e f]. I can't quite place the memory.

I do like far better the idea of replacing withs with a '/' ssyntax for let. So that this:

  (def foo ()
    /a (bind 1)
    (expr 1)
    /b (bind 2)
    (expr 2)
    /c (bind 3)
    (expr 3))

  (def foo ()
    (let a (bind 1)
      (expr 1)
      (let b (bind 2)
        (expr 2)
        (let c (bind 3)
          (expr 3)))))

I was thinking about that and wanted to find a link earlier, but I can't find it. I hope someone will; I want to add a credit to that idea in Parendown's readme.

I seem to remember it being one of the early ideas for Arc that didn't make it to release, but maybe that's not right.

---

"I do like far better the idea of replacing withs with a '/' ssyntax for let."

I like it pretty well!

It reminds me of a `lets` macro I made in Lathe for Arc:

  (lets
    a (bind 1)
    (expr 1)
    b (bind 2)
    (expr 2)
    c (bind 3)
    (expr 3))

This right here

    (expr 1)
    b (bind 2)

       (expr 1)
    b  (bind 2)

With the syntax you're showing there, you at least have a punctuation character at the start of a line, which I think successfully breaks the illusion of nested parens for me.

---

It looks like I implemented `lets` because of this thread: http://arclanguage.org/item?id=11934

And would you look at that, ylando's macro (scope foo @ a b c @ d e f) is a shallow version of Parendown's macro (pd @ foo @ a b c @ d e f). XD (The `pd` macro works with any symbol, and I would usually use `/`.) I'm gonna have to add a credit to that in Parendown's readme too.

Less than a year later than that ylando thread, I started a Racket library with a macro (: foo : a b c : d e f): https://github.com/rocketnia/lathe/commit/afc713bef0163beec4...

Oh, apparently it's Interlisp! They call the ] a super-parenthesis.

http://bitsavers.trailing-edge.com/pdf/xerox/interlisp/Inter...

  The INTERLISP read program treats square brackets as 'super-parentheses': a
  right square bracket automatically supplies enough right parentheses to match
  back to the last left square bracket (in the expression being read), or if none
  has appeared, to match the first left parentheses,
  e.g.,    (A (B (C]=(A (B (C))),
           (A [B (C (D] E)=(A (B (C (D))) E).

http://www.linguistics.fi/julkaisut/SKY2006_1/2.6.9.%20YLI-J...

They favor this approach, which is also the one that best matches the way I intend for Parendown to work:

"Krauwer and des Tombe (1981) proposed _condensed labelled bracketing_ that can be defined as follows. Special brackets (here we use angle brackets) mark those initial and final branches that allow an omission of a bracket on one side in their realized markup. The omission is possible on the side where a normal bracket (square bracket) indicates, as a side-effect, the boundary of the phrase covered by the branch. For example, bracketing "[[A B] [C [D]]]" can be replaced with "[A B〉 〈C 〈D]" using this approach."

  (lets) -> nil
  (lets a) -> a
  (lets a b . rest) ->
    If `a` is ssyntax or a non-symbol, we treat it as an expression:
      (do a (lets b . rest))
    Otherwise, we treat it as a variable to bind:
      (let a b (lets . rest))

The implementation is here in Lathe's arc/utils.arc:

Current link: https://github.com/rocketnia/lathe/blob/master/arc/utils.arc

Just to clarify, in my original design a `var` would expand into a `let` (with the body of the let extending down to the bottom of the enclosing form), and thus the definitions wouldn't have the same scope.

Which isn't to say we couldn't do something different of course :)