Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

I don't get why -> syntax is used if part of the goal is homoiconicity.

Nitpicking aside, I fully approve of the goals and look forward to browsing the source.



Using infix -> doesn't break homoiconicity. The program is still encoded as sexprs.


It seems like it would mess with macros, because you'd now need to parse the sexpr to make sure it isn't a ->. And what is the point of homoiconicity if you cannot easily rewrite any given expression? I dunno, it strikes me as odd, but there's also a high chance I'm missing something important about ->'s.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: