From my point of view, the author almost made it into s-expressions, but decided not to go all the way, which (imo) would have been amazing and the "cleanest" (although I don't like using the term "clean" for code, it's so subjective). I'd like to have some light shed over the decision not to go all the way.
A `let` could assume un-even amount of forms in it and only evaluate the last one, using the other ones as bindings.
Example from your README:
(Main n) =
let size = (\* n 1000000)
let list = (Range size Nil)
(Fold list λaλb(+ a b) 0)
(define Main (n)
(let size (\* n 1000000)
list (Range size Nil)
(Fold list λaλb(+ a b) 0)))
Good point.
> Could even get rid of the parenthesis for arguments (`(n)` => `n`) and treating forms inside `define` the same as `let`.
No, because non-curried functions are a feature. If we did that, every function would be curried. Which is nice, but non-curried functions are faster (lots of lambdas and wasteful copies are avoided using the equational rewrite notation), so they should be definitely accessible.
Many questions arise, for a small amount of benefit (imo), so not sure it's worth it.