That's quite debatable, ",", ";" and "." definitely have a logic about them but I wouldn't use "consistent" to describe them. fn/named functions is rather similar (the syntaxes are rather different).
But the syntax is rather small (if noisy and with more keywords than you'd expect), which is good. Still, it's no Smalltalk.
It's funny, because I was thinking exactly about ';', ',' and '.' when writing about consistency. ';' separates clauses - in functions, 'case', 'if' and 'receive' alike. ',' separates expressions - everywhere. And '.' ends definitions. I find this consistent, but - this being syntax - it's purely subjective, so it's not like I'm disagreeing with you - I just like it the way it is.
It's not Smalltalk with it's six (IIRC) syntax constructs nor is it Lisp, but compared to the syntax of C++ or other rather baroque syntaxes it is simple :)
That's quite debatable, ",", ";" and "." definitely have a logic about them but I wouldn't use "consistent" to describe them. fn/named functions is rather similar (the syntaxes are rather different).
But the syntax is rather small (if noisy and with more keywords than you'd expect), which is good. Still, it's no Smalltalk.