Python syntax in Lisp and Scheme

[prunesquallor at comcast.net]

"Terry Reedy" <tjreedy at udel.edu> writes:

> "Pascal Bourguignon" <spam at thalassa.informatimago.com> wrote in
> message news:87ekxfmhhl.fsf at thalassa.informatimago.com...
>>
>> prunesquallor at comcast.net writes:
>> > Since having the correct amount of whitespace is *vital* to the
>> > correct operation of a Python program, it seems that the task of
>> > maintaining it is made that much more difficult because it is only
>> > conspicuous by its absence.
>
>> That remembers me that when  the languages had significant spaces,
> the
>> programming was  done with forms, sheets of  physical paper
> preprinted
>> with empty spaces:
> [further idiocy snipped]
>
> I do believe that several Lispers have suggested that people should
> give Lisp a fair trial before rejecting it on account of parentheses
> or macros.  The same goes, of course, for Python and significant
> indents/dedents.  For most people who try Python, freedom from
> visually redundant fences is a feature.  Those who find it a bother
> after trying are welcome to chose another language.
>
> What makes the comments above doubly absurd is that Lisp has as much
> or more need for 'significant spaces' as Python.  

That is simply incorrect.  It is a small matter to set the readtable
such that things like (+x3) are interpreted as (+ x 3).  This would
make it much more difficult to use complicated variable names, but
that's the tradeoff. 

> Compare (1,2,3) versus (1 2 3).  Having the "correct amount of
> whitespace is *vital* to the correct operation of a" Lisp program as
> much as for any other.  Do Lispers therefore use forms?  I suspect
> not ;-)

There's a bit of a difference between the whitespace separating tokens
and the whitespace that delineates blocks.  The former is a member
of the half-open interval (0, +inf), the latter is a singleton.