bug#52063: 28.0.60; Confusing presentation of lambda

[Lars Ingebrigtsen]

Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> writes:

> I'm OK with making the printed representation similar to the
> source code.  But when that is in turn used to motivate changes to the
> source code, I think it's gone too far.
> It's hard enough to design good source syntax without such constraints.

I'm not sure I follow you -- I don't think this would mean changing any
source code?

But, yes, it would mean that people might be tempted to write actual
code like

(lambda ()
  (declare (lexical-binding (foo . 1)))
  ...)

but people might be tempted to do the same with `closure' forms, and
that doesn't seem to be happening.

My point is that if we're extending the `lambda' syntax, we might as
well do it in a way that allows further easy expansions in the future.

> Also, I think it's good if the source syntax is a bit different from the
> function value syntax: we want the two to be *similar* so the function
> value feels familiar and can intuitively be understood, but we also want
> to make it clear that we're looking at something
> fundamentally different.
>
> That's why I'd favor a representation of the form #[...] or #<...> or ...

Hm, right...  I think I'm in favour of demystifying, not further
mystifying things for the users.

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
   bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no