Yep. My margin annotations in the tutorial notes for composition read, "Kinda like pipe..."
Unless, pipe is reserved for something else why not implement it here? Assuming an english keymap is in use both the : and | require a shiftkey to enter and both use pinky finger to insert. Is the extra bit of reach an issue? Conceptually the|seems more apropos to composition and prob. more accessible to more potential adopters than the :. For me the|is an easier visual parse when scanning multiple lines of code. For me the:isn't as easy a visual parse when scanning multiple lines of code.
Qi is built onto CL and any type correct Qi type can be compiled down to common-lisp (complete with Qi type checking).
Qi can make calls to the underlying lisp and vice versa.
Qi has a much 'purer' functional form than CL eg side effects.
Qi isn't Lisp. Qi isn't a neo-Lisp. Its built with/on lisp thats it.
Qi doesn't expand CL so much as it encompasses it. Given a Qi dsl implementation with a detailed type theory/type-checker the comparison of Qi to CL becomes irrelevant -the two are entirely different animals.
---
I spent some time attempting digesting the Qi manual... Figured that Qi/Arc had merge potential and as PG hadn't opened up Arc as of late Nov. this was all personal speculation.
As the question has been opened by PG it seems pertinent to ask, "Once the core is solidified why not build Arc with Qi?"
-Arc would be type correct with Qi type checking with timely termination.
-Arc would compile to an optimized Common-Lisp without necessarily having to build WITH common-lisp allowing erlang, haskell, ML, prolog developers etc. to contribute to ARC using a more neutral (less 'lispy') platform.
-Arc would gain from integration of sequent calculus, built in FOL, pattern-matching etc.
-Building on Qi would remove Arc from the "C - procedural - Unix" paradigm and revitalize the "Turner - functional - symbolics Genera" camp. (the 100 year language will not run on a C based operating system!)
---
Which brings to mind the second question?
Maybe the 100 yr language is less about grammar and syntax an more about reexamining the foundations for a 100 yr OS - The Functional OS (tm).
-Open Genera 2.0 is floating around on bit torrents right now waiting for a venture visionary with sufficient tech-savy to resuscitate a once truly visionary OS.
I know that the Genera system is mired in a legal quagmire... but what if Arc (the user level 'scripting' language -think .arc) was built on Qi (analogous to a C subsystem) which was itself implemented as the system abstraction layer for a reimplementation of the aging Genera lisp system. Wouldn't such a re-implementation be sufficiently divorced from the original code to free it from some of the present obstacles?
Qi seems to have some pretty strong ties with SRI et al.
I'm sure an initiative could be drummed up somewhere. If Norvig and Google don't see the merit in contributing some VC to the project (think yahoo/msn insurance) then perhaps the DARPA folks could be coaxed into action; judging by the current Balkanized state of their myriad and lingering Lisp based semanitc, rdf, expert/production systems that are driving most of the US intelligence Infrastructures software systems they could certainly benefit from such a development.
Certainly judging by what some of the CL McClim fellas are accomplishing the proposal and impetus for a Genera style system isn't completely without merit... even if it will never materialize if dependent only on CL.
