For example, this shows a bit of the mix available:
for-each
λ : task
if : and (equal? task "help") (not (null? (delete "help" tasks)))
map
λ : x
help #f #f x
delete "help" tasks
run-task task
. tasks
Viz. the array reference a[0] in algols is a function application in lisps (vector-ref a 0).
The same is true for everything else. Semantic white space in such a language is a terrible idea as everyone eventually finds out.
Note that RX is not like normal semantic white space, but simpler. It is hard coded into the text without taking its content into consideration. RX is basically nested records of text, making it very robust, but encoded as plain text instead of JSON or something like that.
Everyone thinks there's something better and the very motivated write an interpreter for their ideal language in lisp.
The ideas inevitably have so much jank when used in anger that you always come back to sexp.
Now if you discover a way to linearize dags or arbitrary graphs without having to keep a table of symbols I'd love to hear it.
This is not at all obvious.
Obviously, I (usually) would not want to write things like
+
*
a
b
*
c
d
+
a * b
c * d
(a * b) + (c * d)
I have more important things to think about in my code than when I switch between two dialects of the language.
Especially since I get no extra expressive power by doing so.
>Obviously, I (usually) would not want to write things like
Or just use (+ (* a b) (* c d)) which is simpler that any of the example above. Then I can chose between any of:
( +
(* a b)
(* c d))
( +
( *
a
b
)
( *
c
d
)
)
>As the border between these can be fluid, where you choose the cutoff will depend on the situation and also be fluid.
It's only fluid because you've had XX years of infix notation caused brain damage to make you think that.