Re: Bracket heresies. What about subscripting?

[Jim Blandy <jimb@red-bean.com>]

> Hmm...  Isn't *not* regarding an operator as an object a horrible
> perversion of the Scheme way?  Or else, what is meant by procedures
> being first class objects?

Well, yes, operators should be objects.  But it doesn't follow that
all objects should be operators.  :)

> But maybe it isn't that unreadable.  The items of high significance
> are `car', the regexp, and `display'.  Maybe it's good that the regexp
> and `display' are close together...

No, actually, on more careful consideration, my code is not a
compelling example at all.  It's just as readable to say:

(define (x-display-hostname display)
  (car (regexp:split "([^:]*):.*" display)))

where regexp:split does the obvious thing.  And this introduces no
weird new semantics.

I think your matrix code has much more appeal, though.  On first
blush, it seems to be a much more motivated use of the extended
semantics.