I opened my e-mail at the discussion archives and realized that indentation
was ignored. So I am sending the fourth idea attached (since indentation is
crucial in it)
Fourth: the use of "group" is not very comfortable in let, labels,
with-open-file,... . There could be a default behavior in indentation:
let
a 3
b 4
{a + b}
labels
f [x y]
{x + y}
f(3 4)
So, anything which has 2 levels of indentation would group the level at right,
and leave the rest intact. This, off course, would impeach someone from writing
let a 3
{a + 1}
but, for me, it is better than using group. Maybe we can go further:
foo
bar
baz
foobar
foobaz
which translates to (foo (bar) baz (foobar) foobaz). Or even further, allowing
more that 2 levels. But there is the problem for macro do which, in this case,
would be written as
do
a 1 {a + 1}
b 0 {b - 1}
[{b = -50} {a + b}]
do-something
do-something-else
I guess it is still a problem, because indenting the bracket would change the
interpretation... maybe we could accept empty lines as an option for creating a
new group:
do
[a 1 {a + 1}]
[b 0 {b - 1}]
{b = -50} {a + b}
do-something
do-something-else
which still has some elegance, I believe... Or we could write "end" between the
declarations and the return condition / value. Or accept both. Well, I can't
cover all possibilities... This is a great matter: after all, we are almost
creating a new language!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by the 2008 JavaOne(SM) Conference
Don't miss this year's exciting event. There's still time to save $100.
Use priority code J8TL2D2.
http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;198757673;13503038;p?http://java.sun.com/javaone
_______________________________________________
Readable-discuss mailing list
Readable-discuss@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/readable-discuss
