← Back to context Comment by weknowbetter 7 hours ago This drives me nuts. I love LISP but refuse to pretend writing `)))))))` is reasonable. 7 comments weknowbetter Reply corroclaro 1 hour ago My editor (emacs) shows how I close the scopes and it is easy enough. I'm not sure why writing ) ) ) ) ) would be so much better. uncletaco 7 hours ago Why are you writing ')))))' instead of your closing parenthesis being autogenerated. Sounds like a recipe for failure. bitwize 1 hour ago The 2026 version is: Why are you writing Lisp instead of your code being autogenerated. Sounds like a recipe for failure. greenbit 7 hours ago ))))))) isn't so bad, but )))))))) is just getting ridiculous. You have to draw the line somewhere isr 7 hours ago picolisp has an interesting solution to this. A single ']' will close all open )'s for that block of code packetlost 5 hours ago That has to be a nightmare for parsers lol ashkankiani 2 hours ago not really. it's just pop all of the stack and return to depth 0. you can still detect imbalanced parens, but i'm not sure how it affects the provenance question of where a missing one would point out in errors.
corroclaro 1 hour ago My editor (emacs) shows how I close the scopes and it is easy enough. I'm not sure why writing ) ) ) ) ) would be so much better.
uncletaco 7 hours ago Why are you writing ')))))' instead of your closing parenthesis being autogenerated. Sounds like a recipe for failure. bitwize 1 hour ago The 2026 version is: Why are you writing Lisp instead of your code being autogenerated. Sounds like a recipe for failure.
bitwize 1 hour ago The 2026 version is: Why are you writing Lisp instead of your code being autogenerated. Sounds like a recipe for failure.
greenbit 7 hours ago ))))))) isn't so bad, but )))))))) is just getting ridiculous. You have to draw the line somewhere
isr 7 hours ago picolisp has an interesting solution to this. A single ']' will close all open )'s for that block of code packetlost 5 hours ago That has to be a nightmare for parsers lol ashkankiani 2 hours ago not really. it's just pop all of the stack and return to depth 0. you can still detect imbalanced parens, but i'm not sure how it affects the provenance question of where a missing one would point out in errors.
packetlost 5 hours ago That has to be a nightmare for parsers lol ashkankiani 2 hours ago not really. it's just pop all of the stack and return to depth 0. you can still detect imbalanced parens, but i'm not sure how it affects the provenance question of where a missing one would point out in errors.
ashkankiani 2 hours ago not really. it's just pop all of the stack and return to depth 0. you can still detect imbalanced parens, but i'm not sure how it affects the provenance question of where a missing one would point out in errors.
My editor (emacs) shows how I close the scopes and it is easy enough. I'm not sure why writing
would be so much better.
Why are you writing ')))))' instead of your closing parenthesis being autogenerated. Sounds like a recipe for failure.
The 2026 version is: Why are you writing Lisp instead of your code being autogenerated. Sounds like a recipe for failure.
))))))) isn't so bad, but )))))))) is just getting ridiculous. You have to draw the line somewhere
picolisp has an interesting solution to this. A single ']' will close all open )'s for that block of code
That has to be a nightmare for parsers lol
not really. it's just pop all of the stack and return to depth 0. you can still detect imbalanced parens, but i'm not sure how it affects the provenance question of where a missing one would point out in errors.