OK, my code snippets are Common Lisp. But note that none of them involve list/vector/set literals. I was thinking of [] for array indexing and {} for code blocks.As for infix macros, sure, that's not hard to do, but it's not built into the language and there being "plenty of libraries" is part of the problem: They're all subtly different, none are standard, and I suspect most people don't use them anyway. (Plus there's fun little design issues like whether ax + b should parse the same as a * x + b, and if it does, then how do you refer to a variable called ax from an infix environment?)It doesn't solve the main issue anyway. Take this snippet from the "infix" readme:(def hypot (fn [x y] (infix sqrt(x ** 2 + y ** 2))))It ends with a cluster of )))) (reinforcing the "lots of parentheses" impression) and all of those parentheses mean something different: From the outside in, we have the end of a symbol definition (def ...), the end of a function (fn ...), the end of a macro invocation (infix ...), and the end of a function call sqrt(...). It definitely isn't just "the same number [of parentheses] as any other language that uses parentheses to make function calls".Compare e.g. these versions written in Haskell:hypot = \x y -> sqrt (x ** 2 + y ** 2)... or Perl:sub hypot($x, $y) { sqrt($x ** 2 + $y ** 2)}... or if you want to separate the function and symbol definition parts:*hypot = sub ($x, $y) { sqrt($x ** 2 + $y ** 2) };