> The syntax of S-expressions is the syntax.

of s-expressions. Lisp has an additional layer of syntax on top of s-expressions.

For example the DEFINE-CONDITION operator has this syntax:

  define-condition name (parent-type*) ({slot-spec}*) option* => name

  slot-spec::= slot-name | (slot-name slot-option) 

  slot-option::= [[{:reader symbol}* |  
                   {:writer function-name}* |  
                   {:accessor symbol}* |  
                   {:allocation allocation-type} |  
                   {:initarg symbol}* |  
                   {:initform form} |  
                   {:type type-specifier} ]] 

  option::= [[(:default-initargs . initarg-list) |  
              (:documentation string) |  
              (:report report-name) ]] 

  function-name::= {symbol | (setf symbol)} 

  allocation-type::= :instance | :class 

  report-name::= string | symbol | lambda expression 

with even more syntax for things like lambda expressions and type specifiers.

I know :) And that's cool, and that property is the base of my own programming language. I am also trying right now to find some explanation why it's cool based on some fundamental conclusions from theoretic computer science...

I just feel that when someone says that Lisp does not have syntax or that syntax is not important, it's plain wrong...

> I just feel that when someone says that Lisp does not have syntax or that syntax is not important, it's plain wrong...

I completely agree. I just feel that not every programming language needs to have the same approach to syntax. Lisp is different from most languages in its way to have a data syntax in which programs are written. Thus the data syntax is textual (s-expressions) and the program syntax is structural (based on data structures like lists, symbols, numbers, ..).

Let's put it this way:

Every function and macro description in the HyperSpec has a "Syntax:" synopsis right at the top.

Section 2 of the standard is "Syntax".