adda minimizes paretheses

1.3: adda/syntax/lists of algorithm literals:
. the comma-semicolon syntax for lists
( ,,, ; ,,,,, ; ,,, ) would be confused with
those of an algorithm literal,
( ,,,: ; ;;; ,,,:; ;;; )
unless the algorithm literal is parenthesized;
( ,,, ; ,,( ,,,: ; ;;; ,,,:; ;;; ), ; ,,, )
that should be a general requirement
with the exception that
a file already constitutes a parenthesis .
[1.6: (interactive mode is a type of streamed file;
and adding the paren's would supress execution
until the closing paren' was added) .]
. with that requirement in place,
I can feel more confident designing
subprogram calls without paren's
[@] adda/syntax/subprogram calls without paren's

adda/syntax/
subprogram calls without paren's
. one thing I was taught by lisp counter/zealotry
is that if a language is to have
any chance of being popular
it should go out of its way to
avoid excessive parentheses!
. any symbol that is declared as a function
and is found in a sequence of statements,
can use the form: f x,y,z;
instead of f(x,y,z) .
. if you have: f g x,y;
that should be parsed as f(g(x,y)) ?
at least according to the
nested-if rule:
(if * then if * then * else *)
-- that would be parsed
like so:
if * then (if * then * else *)
rather than:
if * then (if * then * ) else * .
. but what does that do for the rule about
lists requiring paren's when nested in lists?
[@] adda/syntax/lists of algorithm literals
. moot: a unary arg is not a list .