Not really. The culture with Clojure is that macros have reasonably long, descriptive English names. You don't have to go digging in the documentation or source to figure out what a macro does. Haskell, meanwhile, inherits mathematical culture and abuses operator overloading to the point where you can't figure out anything code is doing without looking at the source.
I'd argue that being able to define custom operators is far, far, worse for readability than being able to define custom syntax that's invoked by an English-language macro.
Comments
Not really. The culture with Clojure is that macros have reasonably long, descriptive English names. You don't have to go digging in the documentation or source to figure out what a macro does. Haskell, meanwhile, inherits mathematical culture and abuses operator overloading to the point where you can't figure out anything code is doing without looking at the source.
I'd argue that being able to define custom operators is far, far, worse for readability than being able to define custom syntax that's invoked by an English-language macro.
Well it was sort of a lisp macro joke. ;)