Re: Syntax for Scheme and shells

[sb@metis.no (Steinar Bang)]

IMHO it would be better to incorporate emacs-like editing features,
than to sacrifice a lot on the altar of terseness.

It doesn't really matter if the parantheses are there if you don't
have to count them, or ensure that they're balanced.

Starting out with a paris of balanced parantheses, and the cursor
positioned between them have been mentioned.  Other things that can be
done is to define a typed '(' to mean: output "()" and position the
cursor between them, auto-balancing and so forth.

I'd accept typing \( or \) to get actual paranteses, should I need
them.