On Jul 17, 2005, at 2:34 PM, Daniel Brockman wrote:
> Consider these two examples:
>    assert not foo.bar?
>    assert not foo.bar? and not baz.quux?
> I don't think it would be acceptable to have the former work
> as intended, while the latter would siletly misbehave.
I disagree. The order of precedence of the operators is advertised, and plenty of things fail silenty. (see duck typing)

> > While I think a lisp-like syntax is immensely powerful
> > from a programatic standpoint I think that it can be
> > difficult for a human to read and understand quickly.
> 
> I would have to agree.
    assert ((foo.respond_to? :bar) and (plurgh.include? :mif))
Difficult to read and understand?

> The problem, ultimately, is that you can't meaningfully do:
> 
>  foo bar baz, moomin snufkin
Indeed. I have been schooled, yet again. OK, well I'm still hoping for LISP-with-commas. :)

Devin