[tkrn]

I agree that there is maybe too much potential for confusion with that, but is the dot operator (or read syntax?) actually used that much these days?

Personally I have mostly sometimes used it with Emacs Lisp, but in general relying too much on plain cons cells and cadring down the cars of their cddars feels like a code smell to me and if I need a pair I can always just use cons? As the (only, I think?) infix operator in traditional lisps it has always felt extra-ordinarily useless to me (outside of Schemes use of it lambda lists), but maybe I'm just missing something.

[shakna]

Pairs are used by about 3-quarters of the standard library of Scheme, so I really would not consider its use to be a code smell.

You should be using the pairs when using make-hash, for example.

Cons also doesn't always return a pair. Its main purpose is for prepending to a list. Only when "the second argument is not empty and not itself produced by cons" does it produce a pair.

Which means '(a . b) is clearer code in intent, than (cons a b).

[tkrn]

Good points. I don't think pairs are a code smell when used reasonably in situations where a pair of two values makes sense, like in your make-hash example. Ideally though I'd like to have a real, distinct (immutable) pair/association type separate from the cons/list and maybe use the dot syntax for that instead.

Deeply nested pair & list constructs that need to be unpacked with complex car/cdr combinations is what IMHO gets messy and I take the appearance of cddar & co in code as a sign that I should start thinking about using proper data structures.

[shakna]

A distinct and immutable pair is... A pair.

    (eq? (pair? '(A . B)) #t)

    (eq? (pair? (list 1 2 3)) #f)

But agree you probably want list-ref instead of cddr and friends.

[wiml]

I think you need something like it in order to have a print representation of a cons cell whose cdr is not a cons-or-nil. And it's nice if your print representations are readable.