I think you're argument is:
One has a reasonable expectation of seeing a list following a paren, so parens indicate the presence of a list.
I stipulate that this is a valid argument — true if it's premises are true — but I don't buy the premise.
The odds of seeing something other than a list after a paren is too great for it to be reasonable to expect to see a list following a paren.
Even with your made up number of 89%, that means one bug every 10 parens. That's a huge error rate! Much too great to use in teaching.
In reply to Re^32: Why? (each...)
by ikegami
in thread Why? (each...)
by locked_user sundialsvc4
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |