Experimenting a new syntax to write SVG
I understand the desire for it but I think this design creates problems of understandability and affordness, concentrating the syntax as much as it is done here. ('Affordness' meaning the language ability to show the programmer exactly what can be constructed.)<p>For example, this piece of code is very short and packs a lot of functionality:<p><pre><code>  path*3 {
    fill: none;
    d: @pn(M 5 10 Q 5 5 8 1,
           M 5 10 Q 4 5 2 4,
           M 5 10 Q 6 6 8 4);
  }
  circle*3 {
    fill: @pn(yellow, blueviolet, deeppink);
    cx, cy: @pn(8 1, 2 4, 8 4);
    r: .5;
  }
</code></pre>
But unless you know it by hand. The constructs @pn(...), *3, the codes 8 1, 2 4 ... or M 5 10 Q 5 5 8 1. Are not remotely obvious or intuitive. And it is not obvious what M and Q means? And what can I as programmer write instead?<p>I realize that some of these problems comes from SVG however they are problems none the less.