On 12/5/07, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: >... > I hope we eventually don't get into proof by popularity. >
No. I was replying only to your statement: I dislike the layout rule -- mainly because I only have had very negative experience with it, e.g.Python, Hashell, Makefile, etc. My point is that the fact you dislike it is also not a proof of anything. > | > | When you describe indented style as "lack of syntax" I can > | only imagine that your mind is fixed on a 1-dimensional linear > | conception of what constitutes syntax. > > Imagine harder. > That is up to you. > | When I write Python or Spad I definitely do *not* think of > | what I am doing as "counting what I do not see". > > I have to line up the sequence of statements, or else bad > things happen. Correct. What does that have to do with counting? "line up" is the same as the placement of parenthesis or braces in other languages. If they are misplaced, bad things happen. > > | I see very clearly and quickly the indentation without > | counting. This > > and those counting do not necessarily live in 1-dimensional > syntactic space. I don't understand this comment. Perhaps it is because I am without a definition of "syntactic space". > > | 2-dimensional view of the code takes better advantage of > | the human visual system then does a long linear string of > | characters. > > The layout rule is no near my conception of 2-dimensional > syntactic space. > When you say "layout" I think it is a synonym for 2-dimensional. When you say "rule" I think it has something to do with syntax (in the abstract sense). > | The fact that a very simple "serialization" step is required > | before more conventional syntactic processing can be applied > | should not be interpreted is "no syntax". > > Well, actually if I had to count that serialization, then I would > have said that I had to desugar Spad syntax. It is precisely > because I don't have to do that that I think it does not have a > syntax :-) -- that isn't necessarily a bad thing. Ok ... I think. > > | When you talk about "embedding different languages in Spad" > | I suppose that you mean you are somehow able to take > | advantage of this serialization step? > > No. > > I'm working directly on the Syntax domain, which is the result > of `parsing' and before semantic analysis begins -- see the > Parser domain in OpenAxiom. > I am very interested in your extensions to OpenAxiom in the Syntax and Parser domains. I have been following your patches and brief comments to the OpenAxiom email list about this but these have given me only a very sketchy idea of what you might be doing. Anything more that you can add would be greatly appreciated. > One example of `language' I embedded in Spad is the syntax > of Isar (of Isabelle/Isar). > Fascinating. Regards, Bill Page. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- SF.Net email is sponsored by: The Future of Linux Business White Paper from Novell. From the desktop to the data center, Linux is going mainstream. Let it simplify your IT future. http://altfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/8857-50307-18918-4 _______________________________________________ open-axiom-devel mailing list open-axiom-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/open-axiom-devel
