RE: XML as a transition to s-expr

[Scott McKay <address@hidden>]

At 09:45 PM 12/17/01, S. Alexander Jacobson wrote:
>If we want to migrate people to a consistent syntax, why is the choice
>only between s-expr and XML?  Here is a better syntax than either:
>
>table [:cellpadding "0" :cellspacing "0"] [
>    tr [] [
>         td [:width "50%"] "Cell one"
>         td [:width "50%"] "Cell two"
>         ]
>    ]
>
>It is shorter to type, easier to read, and easier to process than
>the equivalent s-expr's or XML.  And if you like xml-style end group
>balancing you can do use an optonal ';' comment character.

Actually, it's not any shorter to type, it's not easier for *me* to
read, and I bet if you write out the grammar, you'll find that it's
probably a tiny bit more complex to process, because you're
using [] to both delimit parameter lists and to act as begin/end
tokens.

My point?  "Better" is entirely subjective, unless you are very
careful about how you define "better".