Alan Manuel Gloria asked: > How about the cond-style if of Arc? > (if > (condition1) > (dothis1) > (condition2) > (dothis2) > (default)) ... > if > (condition1) > -> (dothis1) > (condition2) > -> (dothis2) > -> (default)

I presume the intent is that "->" at the beginning of a line is ignored. Is that what you mean?? I'll comment based on that possibly wrong assumption, please correct me if that wasn't intended. That _looks_ nice, but two issues: 1. That rule would make "->" unusable, which in many apps is really important. A less-common symbol could work, though, such as "\ ". 2. For short pairs that's really awkward. You still have to use 2 lines to provide information that in traditional Lisp notation only requires one line. For attribute-value pairs that's really important. For example, given the SMT-LIB example: (benchmark bignum :source "SMT-COMP'06 Organizers" :notes "This benchmark is designed to check if the DP supports bignumbers." :status sat :difficulty "0" :category "check" :logic QF_RDL :extrafuns ((x1 Real)) :extrafuns ((x2 Real)) :extrafuns ((x3 Real)) :extrafuns ((x4 Real)) :formula (and (<= (- x1 x2) (/ 1 1000000000000000000000000000000000)) (<= (- x2 x3) (/ 1 2000000000000000000000000000000011)) (<= (- x3 x4) (~ (/ 1 1000000000000000000000000000000000))) (<= (- x4 x1) (~ (/ 1 2000000000000000000000000000000012))))) The simple rule "-> ignored at beginning of line" could be used, but that would produce: benchmark bignum :source -> "SMT-COMP'06 Organizers" :notes -> "This benchmark is designed to check if the DP supports bignumbers." :status -> sat :difficulty -> "0" :category -> "check" :logic -> QF_RDL :extrafuns -> ((x1 Real)) :extrafuns -> ((x2 Real)) :extrafuns -> ((x3 Real)) :extrafuns -> ((x4 Real)) :formula -> and { {x1 - x2} <= {1 / 1000000000000000000000000000000000} } { {x2 - x3} <= {1 / 2000000000000000000000000000000011} } { {x3 - x4} <= ~({1 / 1000000000000000000000000000000000}) } { {x4 - x1} <= ~({1 / 2000000000000000000000000000000012})} ) Yuk. Vertical space is precious; most screens have less vertical than horizontal space. I think we must NOT use "->" as the symbol, anyway. So how about "\ " (backslash followed by space) as the special symbol? That's rather improbable outside a string element; how many times do you need a symbol beginning with space or newline? So here's another rule idea, inspired by that approach. When doing indentation processing: 1. A "\ " at the beginning of the line (after whitespace) is ignored (recursively, so you can have several if you want them). 2. INSIDE a line, "\ " means "treat this as a line break, with the next line beginning at this same indentation level". 3. At the END of a line, "\" means "ignore the newline"; it basically merges the line with the next one & ignores indentation. If we do that, we can write: ; When condition1, dothis1, etc. are lengthy, you can do this: if (condition1) \ (dothis1) (condition2) \ (dothis2) (default) ; When condition1, dothis1, etc. are short, you can do this: if (condition1) \ (dothis1) (condition2) \ (dothis2) (default) benchmark bignum :source \ "SMT-COMP'06 Organizers" :notes \ "This benchmark is designed to check if the DP supports bignumbers." :status \ sat :difficulty \ "0" :category \ "check" :logic \ QF_RDL :extrafuns \ ((x1 Real)) :extrafuns \ ((x2 Real)) :extrafuns \ ((x3 Real)) :extrafuns \ ((x4 Real)) :formula \ and { {x1 - x2} <= {1 / 1000000000000000000000000000000000} } { {x2 - x3} <= {1 / 2000000000000000000000000000000011} } { {x3 - x4} <= ~({1 / 1000000000000000000000000000000000}) } { {x4 - x1} <= ~({1 / 2000000000000000000000000000000012})} ) ; or alternatively: benchmark bignum \ :source "SMT-COMP'06 Organizers" \ :notes "This benchmark is designed to check if the DP supports bignumbers." \ :status sat \ :difficulty "0" \ :category "check" \ :logic QF_RDL \ :extrafuns ((x1 Real)) \ :extrafuns ((x2 Real)) \ :extrafuns ((x3 Real)) \ :extrafuns ((x4 Real)) \ :formula \ and { {x1 - x2} <= {1 / 1000000000000000000000000000000000} } { {x2 - x3} <= {1 / 2000000000000000000000000000000011} } { {x3 - x4} <= ~({1 / 1000000000000000000000000000000000}) } { {x4 - x1} <= ~({1 / 2000000000000000000000000000000012})} ) ; If you reorder the ":formula" entry you can see why just the "\ at the end" ; doesn't completely solve the problem. You can't really do that here: benchmark bignum :logic \ QF_RDL :formula \ and { {x1 - x2} <= {1 / 1000000000000000000000000000000000} } { {x2 - x3} <= {1 / 2000000000000000000000000000000011} } { {x3 - x4} <= ~({1 / 1000000000000000000000000000000000}) } { {x4 - x1} <= ~({1 / 2000000000000000000000000000000012})} ) :source \ "SMT-COMP'06 Organizers" :notes \ "This benchmark is designed to check if the DP supports bignumbers." :status \ sat :difficulty \ "0" :category \ "check" :extrafuns \ ((x1 Real)) :extrafuns \ ((x2 Real)) :extrafuns \ ((x3 Real)) :extrafuns \ ((x4 Real)) Hmm, this rule doesn't seem too bad. It's relatively simple, and _seems_ useful. I _could_ be convinced. Thoughts? --- David A. Wheeler ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/ _______________________________________________ Readable-discuss mailing list Readable-discuss@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/readable-discuss