Daniel Fischer wrote:
Or, what I do:
concat [ "(" , str , ")" ]
This is a lot better, true, but it still takes a lot of typing, and the first element is now special-cased, preventing easy copy-and-paste (although, admittedly, much less opportunity for mistake). On a more philosophical level, the signals used by the humans still are different from the signals used by the computer, which leads me to suspect such a system could still cause confusion.
And that is avoided, because a missing comma leaps to the eye.
True. Drawing this much attention to syntax, however, is part of why I find it aesthetically displeasing.
Which is a good thing in my eyes.
Well, yes, but it means that when you lay it out the way I was proposing, you had two levels of indentation. With the way you're using, it's a lot cleaner.
I see your point but remain not liking the proposal.
Do you mean you see that there is a problem in the language that needs fixing, but you just don't like this fix? Would you be open to a modified version of the proposal? Is it an aesthetic objection, or more philosophical?