I am in favor of linebreak as well as a linejoin. I'd very much like to have an easier to type NB.
.. NB. ... linejoin (followed by comment) .... linebreak I used to think internal and nested comments were important, but not anymore. Not enough bang for the required mechanism. On Sat, Apr 1, 2023 at 10:48 AM Jan-Pieter Jacobs < [email protected]> wrote: > I'd be in favour of both .. and ... . > Regarding ... , I'd like to note that Matlab uses the same as line joiner > (see > > https://www.mathworks.com/help/matlab/matlab_prog/continue-long-statements-on-multiple-lines.html > ), > and also turns everything after that into a comment (which is very handy). > This would let one also comment longer tacit verbs well, without any > extraneous NB.'s . Trivial example would be: > avg =: ... > +/ ... sum > % ... divided by > # ... count > > Your first comment would be incompatible with the easy commenting (without > using NB.). > > I don't like the .:. proposal, since it is more difficult to type different > characters instead of the same; I'd rather have ::: (could imagine them > looking like the holes for shoelaces, that can be used to tie together > lines)... > > Jan-Pieter > > > > On Sat, 1 Apr 2023, 11:26 Elijah Stone, <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Some time ago, Michal proposed that a line separator be added. I want to > > rekindle that discussion. The proposal was that .. behave like a line > > break > > when placed on a single line, such that e.g. {{ a=. y+y .. a }} 2 would > do > > the > > obvious thing. Short, distinctive, and to the point. > > > > I also want to propose a line _joiner_, analogous to \ in shell or c: > ..., > > placed at the beginning or end of a line should join it with the previous > > or > > next. Joining lines happens _after_ stripping comments, unlike the other > > languages I cited; the goal is to enable large, multi-line definitions > > with > > commentary for intermediate terms, without the need for pointless > > intermediate > > definitions. > > > > It might be objectionable to use such similar symbols for separators and > > joiners. But maybe it's not such a big deal. Two more ideas: > > > > 1. Could use the _same_ symbol for both, with its sense depending on > where > > it's placed in a line. > > > > 2. Separator could be .:.; metaphor: a hill stops the interpreter in its > > tracks. > > > > I don't like 2 because the larger the separator is, the more annoying it > > is to > > use. Joiner can afford to be large, since it only comes into play if the > > rest > > of the line is sufficiently large. > > > > Anyway--thoughts? Comments? Suggestions? > > > > -E > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
