Matthew Flatt

I've pushed a revised proposal. It doubles down on `=>` (always spelled that way), drops special treatment of `=` and `&`, and changes `:` to be a new and simple...

A simpler number syntax is probably something we all agree on!

@jeapostrophe Thank you for your thoughts! **Organizing principle:** I don't think the notation is as complex or stateful as you suggest. The `next` function has 15 arguments because it's an...

@sorawee I think you are confusing terminology with "function" versus "macro". For example, is `dict-ref` a function or a macro? It's both. It's a macro, because it has a contract...

@jeapostrophe **Binding sensitive grouping:** The `if` form is grouping-by-lexeme in C only because `if` is considered a special lexeme in the same sense as `{` or `;`. Nothing else groups...

@jeapostrophe We're using "grouping-by-binding" in the same way. Otherwise, I guess we are talking past teach other, but I'm pretty sure I understand the arguments in favor of grouping-by-lexeme (even...

@gus-massa I tried adopting your suggestions, but I ended up at an intermediate point: * The proposal now uses `:` everywhere in place of `=>` and `&` in place of...

The latest revision : * Removes a line-starting `:` as a way to continue the previous line's group. * Makes `&` behave like @gus-massa's suggestion. That change introduces more "precedence"...

@gus-massa Yes, you can write the example with long arguments. For associating `,` to `()` and `[]` versus `;` to `{}`, my guideline has been to impose constraints only as...

@gus-massa I very much agree about having DrRacket highlight incorrect indentation and having levels of strictness on indentation at the reader level. I'm not sure what you mean about parentheses...