Idea

{"name": "Lewis Hoffman"}  
Lewis Hoffman

{"type": "Fruit"}       
<Fruit>

{"content": "Kiwi"}     
:Kiwi

{"type":"Fruit", "content": "Kiwi"}
<Fruit>:Kiwi 

{"content": ["eq", "Kiwi"] }
:eq Kiwi

{"content": ["=", "Kiwi"] }
:= Kiwi

{"type": ["in", "Release", "Point Releases"] }
(type:[in Release, Point Release])
<[Release, Point Releases]>

{"content": ["match", "Matt"] }
:~Matt

{"refer_to": "John Abbe"}
(refer_to:"John Abbe")
-> John Abbe

{"referred_to_by": "John Abbe"}
<- John Abbe

{"link_to": "John Abbe"}
_> John Abbe

# link, include, reference:  _>, =>, ->   
# (reference includes both, thus double line)


{"part": "website"}
part:website
# haven't used this one much, it don't need no shortcut

{"right": "email"}
*+email

{"left": "email"}
email+*

# this (condition)+(condition) syntax implies you must always specify left and right together in a pair.  use the wildcard to say "no conditions", otherwise it will assume _self.

{"right_plus": "email"}
;+email

{"left_plus": "email"}
;email+

{"plus":"email"}
;+email || ;email+

# ';' creates a special context where the '+' operator may only specify one side, and the other side is assumed to refer to card that would be returned by the condition. if we use '_this' to stand in for the "other" side, a fully explicit version might be like this:
{"right_plus": "email"}
;(name:_this+email)

{"left_plus": "email"}
;(name:email+_this)

# having to specify the condition twice and join with || to do plus is admittedly a bit of a pain.  however I actually 'want' the language to reflect that we're doing twice as much work on the backend in this case.

{"type":"Ticket","right_plus":["status",{"content":"closed"}]}
<Ticket>;+status:closed

{"type": "User", "not": {"plus": "nerdy nickname"}}
<User>;!+nerdy nickname;!nerdy nickname+

# here ;!  needs to be a special operator.
# if it were a generic !, then it would have to be:
<User>!;+nerdy nickname,!;nerdy nickname+


{"type": "User", "sort": "name", "dir": "desc", "limit": 8}
<User>↓name≤8

# ha!  if only I could figure out the keyboard shortcuts for unicode this would be cool.

{"left":{"found_by":"_self+pattern for action"},"right":"also send to"}
(↵+pattern for action)+also sent to

# the unicode is the pretty way to do this but we might want an easier to type substitute
(<..self+pattern for action)+also sent to

{"type":"committee", "plus":["chair",{"refer_to":"_self"}]}
<comittee>;+chair->_self


{"or":
  {
    "found_by":"_self+action email committee members",
     "and":{"found_by":"_self+action email legislators"}
  }
}
↵+action email committee members || ↵+action email legislators




{"referred_to_by":
  {"left":{"found_by":"_self+pattern_for_action"},
   "right":"send to"}
}
<- (↵+pattern_for_action)+sent to     

# parens omitted as '+' has higher precedence/binding than '<-'


{"referred_to_by":{"left":"_self", "right":"Action Pattern"}}
<- +Action Pattern


{"type":"Stakeholder",
 "referred_to_by":
  {"included_by":
    {"referred_to_by":
      {"left":
        { "referred_to_by":
          {"left":
            {"referred_to_by":
              {"left":"_self",
               "right":"action pattern"
              },
              "right_plus":["action type",{"refer_to":"testimony"}]
            },
           "right":"bill"
          }
        },
      "right":"committee"
      }
    }
  }
}


<Stakeholder> <- ( <= ( <- ((<- (( <-
  ((+action pattern;+action type->testimony)+bill))+committee)))))


# hmm...   So, in this giant case I'm not sure I can claim this is a lot more understandable.
# but it is a *lot* shorter!  haha