Scheme++

I'm implementing Scheme dialect with OOP, default argument values and some other features. How readable is it for you?

(define (fib n (memo . #{ (0 . 1) (1 . 1) }))
  (let ((memoized (: memo get n)))
    (if memoized (cdr memoized)
        (let ((result (+ (fib (- n 1)) (fib (- n 2)))))
          (: memo set! (n . result))
          result))))

>>28
impossible even using macros since you don't know whether something will be an object. you could define! all those symbols to be equal to their own name, but that's going to bite you in the ass quick enough. just do multimethods, dude, and only store fields in objects.

>>28
yeah, for reasons >>29-san described, you can't do it. You could if you went back to the (: object method-name ...) syntax and made : a macro, but that was fugly as fuck.

>>29
>>30
I don't get it. What exactly impossible?

>>31

to get:


(X Y Z W)

to actually be:


(X 'Y Z W)

based upon what X happens to be, at runtime.

>>32
Meh. It will be possible if I make it possible in my interpreter.
But what I meant by "self-evaluating atom" was not quoted symbol, but _atom_ which I described here: >>25
I mean I am going to make method call look like either:
(window 'add-button button)
where method is accessed via symbol, or
(window add-button: button)
where method is accessed via selector(atom).
I understand that the difference is barely notable, but I hope you know how even tiniest design flaw can make programming awful.