On Wed, 2007-08-01 at 16:05 +0200, david48 wrote:
On the topic of indenting, it would be nice if there was a way to tell
the compiler the size of the tab characters.
The way it is now, I have to use space characters to indent.
Good! You're doing exactly the right thing according to the
On the topic of indenting, it would be nice if there was a way to tell
the compiler the size of the tab characters.
The way it is now, I have to use space characters to indent.
It's not really a problem though.
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
On Aug 1, 2007, at 10:05 , david48 wrote:
On the topic of indenting, it would be nice if there was a way to tell
the compiler the size of the tab characters.
The way it is now, I have to use space characters to indent.
The problem with that is, while there's a standard for the width of a
On 8/1/07, Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Aug 1, 2007, at 10:05 , david48 wrote:
On the topic of indenting, it would be nice if there was a way to tell
the compiler the size of the tab characters.
The way it is now, I have to use space characters to indent.
The
On 27/07/07, anon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I see what you did there. But you really might as well end sentences
with prepositions. Or begin them with conjunction. Or indent your code
whichever way seems most natural and elegant because to do otherwise
is just prescriptivism for its own sake.
On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 00:33:17 -0400, you wrote:
What makes this a law? If you notice a pattern where beginners trip
against this rule because they don't indent the arms of conditionals
properly inside do blocks, should strict adherence to this principle
take precendence over the intuition of
On Thu, Jul 26, 2007 at 05:34:32PM -0400, anon wrote:
2007/7/26, Stefan O'Rear [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
As for why, it's just a matter of Haskell Committee taste. Nothing
too deep, just an arbitrary set of rules.
That's not much of an explanation, is it? I imagine someone must have
given the
A bandaid suggestion:
longFunctionName various and sundry arguments = f where
f | guard1 = body1
f | guard2 = body2
| ...
where declarations
(Disclaimer: untested)
As I understand it, there can be guards on the definition of f even if
it takes no arguments. Those guards can reference your
On Thu, Jul 26, 2007 at 02:58:21PM -0500, Nicolas Frisby wrote:
A bandaid suggestion:
longFunctionName various and sundry arguments = f where
f | guard1 = body1
f | guard2 = body2
| ...
where declarations
(Disclaimer: untested)
As I understand it, there can be guards on the
Stefan O'Rear wrote:
Out of curiousity, what do you find objectionable about (legal):
function argument argument2
| guard = body
| guard = body
as compared to (currently illegal):
function argument argument2
| guard = body
| guard = body
I see the vertical strokes as visually lining up,
On Thu, Jul 26, 2007 at 08:17:06PM -0400, anon wrote:
but one could likewise dismiss the entire layout business as a
needlessly complicated way to save a few keystrokes if one were so
inclined.
The main point of layout, in my eyes, is to make code more readable.
It achieves this both by
Concerning
function argument argument2
| guard = body
| guard = body
I feel that anything that prevents that kind of horror is
a great benefit of the current rules and that this benefit
must not be lost by any revision of the rules.
The Fundamental Law of Indentation is
If major syntactic
2007/7/26, Stefan O'Rear [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Out of curiousity, what do you find objectionable about (legal):
function argument argument2
| guard = body
| guard = body
as compared to (currently illegal):
function argument argument2
| guard = body
| guard = body
The extra space, obviously
Whoops, read too fast. Sorry for the noise.
On 7/26/07, Stefan O'Rear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Jul 26, 2007 at 02:58:21PM -0500, Nicolas Frisby wrote:
A bandaid suggestion:
longFunctionName various and sundry arguments = f where
f | guard1 = body1
f | guard2 = body2
| ...
On Thu, Jul 26, 2007 at 08:17:06PM -0400, anon wrote:
2007/7/26, Stefan O'Rear [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Out of curiousity, what do you find objectionable about (legal):
function argument argument2
| guard = body
| guard = body
as compared to (currently illegal):
function argument argument2
Hi
Why do you think it should be allowed? The current rules are arbitrary,
but they are quite simple; we don't want to add an ad-hoc exception just
for this.
The current rules are already quite complex, I believe there is some
thought being given as to how to simplify them.
Out of
On Thu, Jul 26, 2007 at 02:56:57PM -0400, anon wrote:
Greetings,
I wish to be able to indent my code like so:
longFunctionName various and sundry arguments
| guard1 = body1
| guard2 = body2
| ...
where declarations
That is, with guards and where clauses indented to the same level as
the
Greetings,
I wish to be able to indent my code like so:
longFunctionName various and sundry arguments
| guard1 = body1
| guard2 = body2
| ...
where declarations
That is, with guards and where clauses indented to the same level as
the function name.
This seems like a perfectly reasonable
2007/7/26, Stefan O'Rear [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
As for why, it's just a matter of Haskell Committee taste. Nothing
too deep, just an arbitrary set of rules.
That's not much of an explanation, is it? I imagine someone must have
given the matter some thought before describing the layout rule in
On Thu, Jul 26, 2007 at 05:34:32PM -0400, anon wrote:
2007/7/26, Stefan O'Rear [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
As for why, it's just a matter of Haskell Committee taste. Nothing
too deep, just an arbitrary set of rules.
That's not much of an explanation, is it? I imagine someone must have
given the
On Thursday 26 July 2007, anon wrote:
2007/7/26, Stefan O'Rear [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Out of curiousity, what do you find objectionable about (legal):
function argument argument2
| guard = body
| guard = body
as compared to (currently illegal):
function argument argument2
|
2007/7/26, ok [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
The Fundamental Law of Indentation is
If major syntactic unit X is a proper part of major syntactic
unit Y, then every visible character of X is strictly to the
right[%] of the leftmost[%] visible character of Y.
[%] If you are using a right-to-left
On 7/27/07, Neil Mitchell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Personally, I have no problem with the current way (and would consider
anything other than 4 leading spaces in the first example to be evil).
However, if you are using a text editor which doesn't automatically
indent the start of following
23 matches
Mail list logo
